THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

VOLUME 61, NUMBER 1-2 March- June 2008

.07

17 '

.V6 Carlo '
F58 H b,

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635.
Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United
States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall
be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society
during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30,
sustaining S40 or more, patron S100 or more, life S500, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $5 U.S. to cover
added postage and handling costs for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent
to members with current paid dues. Please contact the Editors for information on recent back issues.

Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at
www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4)
copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All
manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft format Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to
the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such
mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September. and December of each year.

Cover: A 1774 map of Charlotte Harbor by Dutch navigator Bernard Romans. He named the water body
"Charlotte Harbor" after English Queen Charlotte (see Vernon Peeples, Punta Gorda and the Charlotte
Harbor Area: A Pictorial History [1986:10] and Lindsey Williams, Boldly Onward [1986:150, 151]).

Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. UNIVERSITY COLOR
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
ISSN 0015-3893 I1111 I111I III, 111l 1111

3 1262 07334 908 5

FROM THE GUEST EDITORS

In this issue, we focus on state archaeological sites at Charlotte Harbor that are managed by the Florida Park Service.
Our purpose is to present new knowledge about those sites, much of it gained during the last decade.
In its procurement, we acknowledge the assistance of many individuals.
First and foremost, we want to thank John Aspiolea, Manager of Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park, for his support in
making this issue a reality. Also essential in preceding years was the support of Robert Repenning, the area's former State Land
Manager. Invaluable participation and assistance in every project presented here came from Charles Blanchard, who worked for
both Repenning and Aspiolea.
In Tallahassee, we are grateful to Ryan Wheeler, Chief of the Bureau of Archaeological Research, and Jim Miller, former
Bureau Chief, for their support. We also received assistance from other state archaeologists, including Mary Glowacki, Melissa
Memory, Chris Newman, Bill Stanton, Brenda Swann, and Louis Tesar.
Locally, in Charlotte County, we want to acknowledge citizens Al Cheatham, Rich and Monica Dorken, Bob and Linda Edic,
and Edwin Woolverton for their unflagging help.
In Lee County, we want to thank Phil Buchanan, Greg LeBlanc, Brian Holloway, Theresa Schober, Corbett Torrence, the late
Bud House, and the late Pat and Don Randell.
Also essential in this issue's production was the expertise of reviewers, including John Aspiolea, Charles Blanchard, John
Dietler, Kevin Lollar, Chris Newman, Ryan Wheeler, and John Worth. Louis Tesar and Dan Hughes also assisted with electronic
images.
We hope this issue inspires more appreciation of archaeological sites.
The protection of state-owned sites is essential, and citizens are urged to report looting or other destructive activity to law
enforcement.
In the Charlotte Harbor area, the Florida Park Police maintain a regional center in Fort Myers (emergency land line: 239-938-
1800; cell phone: *347).
The Manager of Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park is based in Punta Gorda (land line at Park headquarters: 941-575-
5861).
Finally, we are grateful to Andrea P. White and Deborah R. Mullins, Co-Editors of The Florida Anthropologist, for composing
the layout of this issue. We also acknowledge the Florida Anthropological Society for making publication possible.

On July 1, 2004, the Florida Park Service assumed
management of more than 170 square kilometers (42,000 acres,
or 65.5 square miles) of state buffer preserve property around
Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, and Matlacha Pass, now
designated as Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park (CHPSP).
The park poses a unique cultural resource management
challenge, containing 86 recorded archaeological sites. In this
article, we discuss the nature of the park's cultural resources,
management issues facing staff, and work presently underway
to document and preserve archaeological sites.

General Background

CHPSP is located in western Charlotte and Lee counties
on Florida's southwest coast (Figure 1). The property is
comprised of numerous tracts scattered around Charlotte
Harbor, the mouths of the Peace and Caloosahatchee rivers,
Pine Island Sound, and Matlacha Pass. Many of the tracts were
purchased in the 1970s by the Environmentally Endangered
Lands program to protect natural habitats and water quality in
the estuaries.
These lands fall within the physiographic area known as
the Gulf Coastal Lowlands. This area exhibits little natural
topographic relief, with much of the property periodically
submerged. It is primarily vegetated by mangrove and salt
marsh wetland, along with freshwater marsh, coastal scrub,
semitropical hardwood hammock, and pineland. The park
supports a wide array of animal and plant species, some of
which are threatened or endangered. It contains archaeological
sites that represent thousands of years of human settlement
and adaptation to the coastal environment.
The Division of Recreation and Parks (DRP), part of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
assumed responsibility for this fragmented property in 2004.
Before then, it was designated Charlotte Harbor State Buffer
Preserve, under the jurisdiction of Coastal and Aquatic
Managed Areas (CAMA). Earlier, in the 1980s, it was called
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve and was managed by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR, now DEP).
Under the direction of the Division of Historical Resources
(DHR) and its Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR),
archaeologists with the Public Lands Archaeology (PLA)
Program are responsible for assisting in the management
of state-owned cultural resources, such as those in CHPSP.

This responsibility applies to surface and subsurface cultural
remains, in contrast to biotic resources addressed by DEP.
DHR maintains legal control of surface and subsurface
cultural remains through a permit process (Section 267.12,
Florida Statutes; Rule 1A-32, Florida Administrative Code).
Permits are issued for specific tasks and sites, and are time
restricted. There are criminal penalties for collecting artifacts
from, or digging in, state-owned sites without a permit from
DHR (Section 267.13, Florida Statutes). BAR also offers a
training program in cultural resource management for DEP
and other state personnel, which is taught in Tallahassee.
Tasks conducted on state lands by archaeologists are
varied. They include identifying areas of archaeological site
probability, as well as locating, recording, inventorying, and
interpreting sites. Work can involve mitigating damaged sites
due to looting and environmental factors (such as erosion),
and providing management recommendations.
In 2000 through 2003, the Conservation and Recreation
Lands (CARL) Archaeological Program (BAR's former
public lands program) assisted in several projects to help DEP
address looted or eroding sites around Charlotte Harbor. In
what is now CHPSP, projects involving CARL produced a
series of reports (Luer et al. 2001; Memory 2000; Newman
and Swann 2003). They and related reports are revised and
presented in this issue, with the Hooker Key report describing
how this process became formalized.
In 2006, BAR made it a priority to assist DEP in the
management ofthe park's cultural resources. This commitment
led to participation in two profiling projects associated
with DEP's stabilization work at three sites: Catfish Point,
Hollenbeck Key, and Mason Island (Porter and Glowacki
2006, 2007). It also led BAR to obtain a federal Coastal Zone
Management grant, which will allow production of detailed,
measured site maps (see below).

The Cultural Resources

The Charlotte Harbor area lies within two archaeological
regions: the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast and the
Caloosahatchee (Figure 2). The Central Peninsular Gulf Coast
Region stretches from near New Port Richey south to Boca
Grande Pass. The Caloosahatchee Region is more southerly,
extending along the Gulf coast from Boca Grande Pass to
Naples.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

v *

MARCH-JUNE 2008

VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

. L -

,-iv

tandrk
StaIM FPad

C nartte
Hartwbra

Csiart, r r
S q.ualtc PrS ertr,.

(, , .- ijj
5 = ,', 1 !

CHARLOTTE HARBOR A
PRESERVE STATE PARK 'i

Figure 1. Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park consists of the dark grey areas bordering the estuaries. Arrows
point to six sites investigated in this issue. Adapted from DEP 2007.

Figure 3 shows the prehistoric culture sequences for
these two regions. Charlotte Harbor proper is a formidable
body of water, making a natural division of the area. Further
complications of shoreline and distance (as well as winds,
waves, and tides) fragment the area even more, so that five
smaller areas can be distinguished in CHPSP. Of these,
the Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass areas fall in the
Caloosahatchee Region. To the north, the Cape Haze area, the
upper Charlotte Harbor area (around the mouths of the Myakka
and Peace rivers), and the "East Wall" (the eastern shore of
Charlotte Harbor and the Alligator Creek neighborhood) fall
in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Region.
Throughout the Charlotte Harbor area, from river mouths
to barrier islands, there are more than 100 known precontact
sites, ranging from low, tide-washed shell middens to tall,
broad mounds and a well-engineered canoe canal. The higher
middens and mounds support tropical vegetation, such as
mastic, strangler fig, and gumbo limbo trees, that can reach
above the canopy of the surrounding mangrove forest. The
Charlotte Harbor area also contains a number of historic
sites, including remains of Seminole life and war as well as
nineteenth century fishing ranches and other small coastal
settlements.

Many of the American Indian sites represent the remains
of complex chiefdoms, whose subsistence was based largely on
estuarine resources. Some of the most dramatic site features,
such as canals, breakwaters, and mounds, may represent public
works projects. The location and distribution of prehistoric
sites in and around Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound
indicate a complex settlement network, linked by intricate
waterways and routes that operated for millennia. Site density
for the region is on par with other well-surveyed areas such
as the Aucilla River, Chassahowizka Islands, Waccasassa Bay,
Wekiva River, and Everglades areas, which reflects significant
cultural development.
The archaeological richness of the Charlotte Harbor area
was first described near the end of the nineteenth century.
Individuals such as Kenworthy, Simons, and Cushing noted the
area's abundance of large shell mounds. Following Cushing's
work, Moore, Stirling, Goggin, Griffin, Bullen and Bullen,
and others contributed further to the archaeological data for
the region.
More recently, a number of individuals, organizations,
institutions, agencies, and projects have contributed to our
current view of the archaeology of the Charlotte Harbor area.
Besides BAR and DEP, they include the FloridaAnthropological

Figure 3. Prehistoric culture sequences for the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast and Caloosahatchee re-
gions. The date ranges of culture periods are approximate and subject to refinement. The site numbers
refer to site components and their radiocarbon ages based on data in this issue.

Society (FAS) and regional chapters, the Florida Museum
of Natural History (FLMNH), and the Charlotte Harbor
Environmental Center. Some current researchers include
Blanchard, Cordell, Dietler, Hutchinson, Luer, Marquardt,
Newman, Newsom, Quitmyer, Schober, Torrence, Walker,
Widmer, Wheeler, and Worth.
Some studies have emphasized archaeological evidence of
complex aboriginal social development as well as evidence of
the rich estuarine environment found in the area. Other studies
have helped to draw attention to, and quantify the effects of,

decades of previously undocumented looting. In addition, the
loss of valuable archaeological resources due to natural causes,
such as storm surges and tidal erosion, has stimulated efforts
to document site damage.

Management Issues

BAR and DEP staff must face the practical divide between
protection on paper and protection in fact. Indeed, the Charlotte
Harbor estuaries can be difficult to traverse, whether by land

CALOOSAHATCHEE I

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

GLOWACKI ET AL. MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES

or water. Even seasoned veterans can become disoriented in
dense mangrove forests and island mazes. Shallow water, tides,
winds, cold fronts, winter fog, and stifling summer heat require
well planned and carefully scheduled site visits. For example,
the wind can increase so much that small paddle craft (e.g.,
canoes, kayaks) can become inoperable, forcing one to wait
or, if necessary, to wade across miles of tidal mud and grass
flats. Deer flies, mosquitoes, ticks, no-see'ems, scorpions,
wasps, bees, fire ants, and rattlesnakes are other factors that
can exacerbate work effort. In addition, exotic vegetation is
dense in many areas, so that using a chainsaw is the only way
to gain access to the interior of some sites.
Looter damage over the last 50 years has left many
archaeological sites marred. Some looters have focused on
cemeteries and mortuary sites, removing human remains and
grave goods (now a felony, Section 872.02, Florida Statutes).
Other looters have dug in shell middens and mounds in futile
searches for fictitious "pirate treasure." Still other looters have
mined large volumes of whelk shells to sell to exporters, or they
have illegally collected artifacts, knowing that the internet has
websites for buying and selling Indian relics. Besides looting,
erosion also has damaged some sites.

Initial Management Strategies

Given these issues, the State land managers and their
staff and volunteers at Charlotte Harbor learned during the
1980s and 1990s that they had to adopt a number of different
strategies to protect cultural resources. They include site
monitoring, documentation, law enforcement, survey, study,
mapping, and acquisition. These strategies were coordinated
first from offices on Pine Island (1983-1999) and later from
headquarters on Burnt Store Road, south ofPunta Gorda (July
1, 1999 to present).

Monitoring

The most fundamental management strategy became
consistent and regular site monitoring. Even before the area's
state-owned lands were staffed by DNR (now DEP), monitoring
began in the Cape Haze area in the early 1980s with site visits
by concerned citizens, namely Charles Blanchard, Robert Edic,
and George Luer. Following a spate of looting in early 1985,
the State began to post sites. Luer acted as a formal Volunteer
for DNR, making monthly visits to Big Mound Key (8CH10)
from May 1985 through May 1987. Luer's monitoring was
a follow-up to the Big Mound Key Archaeological Salvage
Project, which he directed in 1982 before state-owned lands
at Charlotte Harbor were staffed by DNR (Luer 2007; Luer et
al. 1986).
In 1985 and 1986, Luer spearheaded an effort with other
archaeologists as well as the Florida Anthropological Society
(FAS) and the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
(AHC) to lobby for a position of a state law enforcement ranger.
DNR staff were helpful in this process, including William
Sheftall (the first land manager at Charlotte Harbor), Robert
Repenning, and Judy Wysocki. This effort was successful, so
that in May 1987, Repenning (the second land manager) was

able to hire Craig Blocker, a DNR Law Enforcement Ranger,
who expanded monitoring to all state-owned lands around
Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, and Matlacha Pass.
Blocker continued to post sites for several years, patrolling
them regularly by airboat and other watercraft. He focused on
Josslyn Island (8LL32) (see article about Josslyn Island in this
issue) and on the Cape Haze area, especially in the vicinity
of Big Mound Key where he made two arrests (Anonymous
1991).

Documentation

During monitoring in the 1980s, DNR worked with Luer
to document site vandalism (e.g., Luer et al. 1986; MacKinnon
and Luer 1987). In mid-1988, DNR hired two archaeologists
to assess known state-owned sites. They recorded a range of
data, including site descriptions, plant lists, and sketch maps
designed to assist Blocker in his duties (Luer and Archibald
1988a). The maps showed existing looter pits, approximate
site contours, boat landings, and other useful landmarks.
Beginning in 1990 and corresponding with the inception
of CARL, archaeologists from BAR visited the Charlotte
Harbor area. These CARL archaeologists added data to the
Florida Master Site File about sites such as Josslyn Island, Big
Mound Key, No Name Creek (8CH73), Little Lake (8CH450),
and Turtle Bay 2 (8LL37) (Newman 1990; Weisman and
Newman 1990, 1991). They also conducted limited profiling
of a vandalized area on Big Mound Key (Weisman 1991).
In addition, CARL personnel completed a National
Register of Historic Places nomination for the Big Mound Key/
Boggess Ridge Archaeological District (8CH10, 16, 19, and
34) (Weisman 1990). Since this state-owned site district was
terribly damaged by heavy machinery and looter pits, greater
formal recognition was thought to be a way to strengthen its
protection.

Law Enforcement

In addition to regular patrols by Ranger Blocker in 1987
through 1992 (see above), Florida Park Police pursued looters.
After arresting three men for digging illegally in Cayo Costa
State Park in July 1991, Park Police investigated and prosecuted
four men for theft and racketeering related to "treasure
hunting" on state and federal land along the Florida Gulf coast.
The men caused great damage in some places, including to
archaeological sites at Charlotte Harbor (Leiser 1992; Porter
1992). Captain Joseph Subic, Jr., of the Park Police, who was
then based at Oscar Scherer State Park between Sarasota and
Venice, was instrumental in this investigation.

Survey and Study

Another strategy for managing sites was to encourage
survey and study. Toward that goal, DNR supported salvage
work at vandalized sites (e.g., Luer andArchibald 1988b). Later,
in 1994, DEP supported the Charlotte Harbor Environmental
Center (CHEC) in applying for a DHR Survey and Planning
Grant. CHEC is a non-profit educational organization funded

GLOWACKI ET AL.

MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

in part by the Charlotte County School Board, and it provides
environmental education to Charlotte County visitors, citizens,
and school children. CHEC facilities are located south of Punta
Gorda, within a portion of CHPSP
The Survey and Planning Grant project, funded in 1995,
was named the Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey and involved
a group of five primary researchers, who conducted a series
of studies. It recorded 15 new sites, and updated nine others,
within the state-owned and DEP-managed Alligator Creek
Tract, south ofPunta Gorda. Grant work included oral histories,
volumetric studies, and measured contour site maps (Charlotte
Harbor Environmental Center 1996; also see Edic 1996; Jones
1999; Patton 1996; Torrence 1999). In the late 1990s, DEP
lent support (e.g., transportation) to a follow-up study to the
survey aspect of this project, which entailed additional testing
and analysis (Patton 2000).

Formal Mapping

Site File forms. Blanchard works several months each year to
perform these tasks for DEP. Blanchard brings considerable
experience to this task because he canoed extensively
through the area's waters and monitored sites for many years
before being hired by DEP. His dedication to such work is
invaluable.
In addition, CHPSP Manager, John Aspiolea, has made
sustained efforts to monitor the condition of sites, as did the
previous land manager, Robert Repenning. In 2000, such
efforts led to the capture of looters on Josslyn Island, followed
by successful prosecution and conviction. The Josslyn Island
case ended 20 years of looting for shells in the Pine Island
Sound area, where sites on Mason Island, Hooker Key, and
Josslyn Island suffered large-scale destruction due to an illegal
shell trade (see articles about Josslyn Island and Hooker Key,
this issue).

Education by Staff

The DEP office at Charlotte Harbor also made measured
maps of archaeological sites. Maps are very helpful because
sites tend to be so overgrown that their size, shape, and
extent are unclear, even when consulting aerial photographs
or when visiting them in the field. Thus, DEP Land Manager
Robert Repenning contracted professional surveyors to make
measured contour maps of sites at Mason Island (8LL65),
Hollenbeck Key (8CH17), and Turtle Bay 1 (8CH36) (FEI
Surveying 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). In addition, he hired
archaeologists Corbett Torrence and Theresa Schober to make
a measured contour map of the Catfish Point Site (8CH9)
(Torrence 2003).

Acquisition

Another strategy has been to acquire sites for preservation.
In 1986, DNR supported CARL acquisition of the Alligator
Creek Tract consisting of 850 acres south of Punta Gorda and
including a major mound site, the Acline Mound (8CH69),
and a number of then unrecorded satellite middens (Charlotte
County 1986; Luer 2002a:115). Another notable example is
Josslyn Island, purchased by CARL in 1989. Yet another is the
Catfish Point Site, acquired in 1998. At present, there are still
a number of significant sites adjacent to CHPSP that should be
purchased and preserved.

Current Management Strategies

The only realistic way to keep track of cultural resources
in CHPSP is to employ staff expressly for this duty. This has
not been the case for other state properties with large numbers
of sites, such as the Aucilla River Wildlife Management Area
(ARWMA), near Tallahassee. There, we have paid a heavy
price for being unable to monitor sites regularly.

Staff Monitoring and Assessment

Since 1998, DEP has employed staff to assess cultural
resources in CHPSP and to record and update Florida Master

Another facet of the Park's work is education. At least
once a year since 1998, and in cooperation with CHEC,
Blanchard has conducted guided tours of the Acline Mound,
a large shell mound in the Park's Alligator Creek Tract near
Punta Gorda. Blanchard has given public lectures about
Charlotte Harbor archaeology to many organizations, such
as The Nature Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Blanchard
1999) and several times to the Warm Mineral Springs/Little
Salt Spring Archaeological Society and the Randell Research
Center at Pineland. He delivered a paper about Matlacha Pass
at the 2003 Annual Meeting of FAS in Tallahassee (Blanchard
2003). And, he has reported about the Park in newsletters,
such as Charlotte Harbor Soundings (Blanchard 2004a), and
in scholarly media, such as Connections: The Journal of the
Boca Grande Historical Society (Blanchard 2004b). The latter
became a book chapter (Blanchard 2006).
While working for DEP, Blanchard also has trained
Florida Park Police, State police, and Marine Patrol officers
about problems of site looting. These efforts to educate law
enforcement authorities have been successful, leading to
arrests. Park staff has provided information about arrests and
efforts to repair damaged sites to the area's newspapers (e.g.,
Dale 2006; Hoyem 2001; Lollar 2000; Ruane 2000).

BAR/DEP Profiling Program

Beginning in 2000, BAR and DEP began a formal process
of recording and backfilling looter pits. The first such project
was at Hooker Key (8LL30) in Pine Island Sound. There, a
recent looter pit was mapped, profiled, radiocarbon dated,
backfilled, and a detailed report produced (Luer et al. 2001).
The work revealed a 2,000 to 2,500 year-old shell midden,
which was much older than suspected for this previously
undated site. This discovery, plus unusual artifacts recovered,
proved the research value of such profiling work (see Hooker
Key article in this issue).
Later in 2000, while assessing fresh looter damage on
Josslyn Island (also in Pine Island Sound), archaeologist
Melissa Memory noted that "simply refilling the [looter]

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Table 1. Sites addressed in this issue and BAR collections from them as of 2007 (BAR =
Bureau of Archaeological Research).

holes without documenting their location or the damaged
archaeological strata does nothing to mitigate the destruction
of the cultural data." She reiterated the formal process
begun earlier in the year at Hooker Key, citing it as baseline
methodology for such salvage archaeology (Memory 2000:9).
It includes the following tasks:
1. Map the location of damage in relation to the site as well as
record the volume and spatial coverage of any damage.
2. Clean at least one wall in each looter pit, draw a profile
of its stratification, and describe and photograph deposits
and features.
3. Collect at least one sample for radiocarbon dating from
each major cultural stratum. Also collect artifacts and
other cultural debris from the profile and looter spoil.
4. Refill the pit after placing glass bottles, ceramic tiles, or
other indestructible material in the bottom of the pit, and
in the backfilled spoil, in order to indicate disturbance. If
possible, use the original spoil to refill the pit.
5. Prepare a report that discusses the archaeological details
and interpretation of the damaged area as well as methods
used to repair the area. If possible, estimate the cost of the
work.
In several subsequent profiling projects, BAR has followed
these methods. The projects have produced useful new data
about the ages of sites and about activities that took place on
them. Table 1 lists the six sites addressed by these projects,
plus all current BAR collections from them. Radiocarbon
age ranges from these six sites are shown in Figure 3. These
projects are presented in the rest of this issue.

Future Management Directions

With the change in management from CAMA to DRP
(the Division of Recreation and Parks), reexamination of
our management strategy has been necessary. With so many
sites, and considerable damage to some of them, the task is
daunting.
Responding to this challenge, BAR applied for and
obtained a federal Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grant. It
will allow BAR to make contour maps of many sites in CHPSP.
Fieldwork for the CZM grant began in September 2007.
Also responding to this challenge, DRP applied for
and obtained a Special Category Grant from DHR. It will
focus on removing exotic vegetation, mapping, profiling,
and radiocarbon dating damaged areas on Big Mound Key.
Fieldwork began in December 2007.
In addition, CHPSP hired archaeologist George Luer to
assist CHPSP in dealing with archaeological needs. The work
is permitted through BAR and began in July 2007. It involves
a variety of tasks, such as site documentation at Mason Island
and Big Mound Key.
In collaboration, DEP and BAR personnel see the
following as their management goals:
1. Ensure continuation of regular site monitoring and
recording new and updated forms with the Florida Master
Site File.
2. Maintain regular visits by BAR archaeologists to address
site damage and repair issues.
3. Rank sites in terms of their threats and conditions in order
to prioritize BAR staff site visits.

GLOWACKI ET AL.

MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

4. Compile base maps of all recorded archaeological sites.
5. Address issue of exotic plants and animals present at
archaeological sites. While many invasive, exotic plants
can damage sites, some (such as Brazilian pepper with its
dense growth) can deter looters. A schedule for removing
exotic plants, followed by enhanced law enforcement
visitation, should be considered. This is not an easy task.
It requires six full days to cover all areas of the park,
without counting time to walk into sites and to inspect
them.
6. Consider the issue of public access to archaeological
sites. Over the years, visits to Big Mound Key have been
suggested from time to time by members of the public,
who are curious about its unusual form that is visible in
aerial photographs. However, this heavily vandalized site
is too fraught with physical hazards and management
challenges for this to occur in the near future. In fact, even
to the trained eye, one's appreciation of Big Mound Key
is lost in an on-site visit. From the ground, one cannot see
many of its large-scale features. Consequently, selecting
other sites with greater visitation potential is one solution.
For example, the Acline Mound, on the Alligator Creek
Tract near Punta Gorda, was developed by DEP and
CHEC for guided tours in 1995, and it has been a success
story. The public does not need to visit every site on state-
owned land. However, the public should have some site
experiences that combine physical site visitation and
other interpretive possibilities.
7. Prioritize potential site acquisitions so that significant sites
located adjacent to, or near, CHPSP may be considered
for purchase and preservation.

Conclusion

The archaeological resources of Charlotte Harbor
Preserve State Park are unique, and drawing attention to their
management needs, and to the issues that surround them, is
important to their future protection. Good resource management
entails knowing where sites are, having a familiarity with their
characteristics, protecting them from destruction, encouraging
research, and recording remains when their integrity is
compromised. It also involves education because every looter
hole shows a lack of understanding and appreciation of the
irreplaceable, finite nature of sites. While state and private
resources for archaeology are limited, we should do what we
can to be good site stewards. We must also continue to do
research at these sites so that their archaeological significance
can be documented and revealed.

Edic, Robert F.
1996 Historical Research for the Alligator Creek Area.
In The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey. Dated
July. Compilation of reports prepared for a DHR
Survey and Planning Grant. Submitted to the Florida
Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Historic
Preservation. Tallahassee.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988a An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Conducted for the
Florida Department of Natural Resources by the
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Miami.

MacKinnon, Yvonne, and George M. Luer
1987 A Survey of Recent Vandalism ... Charlotte Harbor
State Reserve. Conducted for the Florida Department
of Natural Resources by the Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy. Miami.

This article describes an archaeological salvage
and stabilization project on state-owned Hooker Key in
southwestern Florida. The key is a mangrove island in
southeastern Pine Island Sound, approximately 5 km (3 mi)
northwest of St. James City, near the southern end of Pine
Island (Figure 1). Hooker Key is part of Charlotte Harbor
Preserve State Park (CHPSP), which is managed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The island
contains a moderate-size shell midden (8LL30) that was being
damaged by looters in the 1990s.
In order to mitigate such activity, DEP proposed a salvage
and stabilization project in early 2000. The salvage work
produced site maps, stratigraphic profiles, and radiocarbon data
showing that a portion of the Hooker Key shell midden dates
to the early to middle Caloosahatchee I Period (ca. 500 B.C. to
ca. A.D. 100). The work documented early-form whelk shell
cutting-edged tools (Type X), which are of research interest.
The stabilization phase ofthe project involved backfilling looter
pits to prevent their expansion and erosion, thereby helping to
protect the site and its irreplaceable information. This project
was intended to serve as an example for additional salvage and
stabilization efforts on state-owned archaeological sites.

The Need for Site Stabilization

The integrity of many archaeological sites owned by the
State of Florida is being compromised by natural and human-
caused degradation. In order to protect these sites, there is a need
for stabilization of damaged or threatened areas (e.g., looter
pits, eroding shores, etc.). Before damaged areas are stabilized,
a procedure that allows the recovery of archaeological data
should be followed by trained archaeologists.
The procedure includes obtaining a Rule 1A-32, Florida
Administrative Code, archaeological research permit from the
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), recording
the locations of damaged areas on detailed site maps, and
recovering archaeological data before damaged areas are
backfilled or otherwise stabilized. Profile map(s) should
be drawn, and artifacts should be collected to interpret site
activities and as an aid to gathering basic site information.
If the age of a deposit, or site, is not known, radiocarbon

dates should be obtained when possible. These data need to
be analyzed and presented in a written report that presents
stabilization methods and archaeological interpretations.
This article was produced by that procedure, and provides
guidance for future stabilization projects on state-owned lands
in Florida. The benefits are clear. In this case, two looterpits were
stabilized, and new knowledge was gained by archaeological
work. At the very least, such archaeological work should
determine the age of a site or part of a site. Such information is
not available for many sites, and thus archaeology conducted
before stabilization can provide important baseline data.

Project Background

State acquisition of environmentally and archaeologically
significant land in Florida has protected many archaeological
sites from potential development or other destruction.
However, public ownership has not protected sites from
threats such as erosion and looting. Such adverse forces
require active state management in order to preserve sites in
the intact condition intended by enabling legislation. Active
management includes the identification of threats to sites
and the development of strategies to minimize them. One
such strategy is the archaeological salvage of damaged areas,
followed by stabilization.
In 1999, Charles Blanchard, a cultural resources specialist
at the Charlotte Harbor area's DEP office, completed an
assessment of the condition of state-owned sites in and around
Pine Island Sound and Charlotte Harbor. He noted numerous
acts of vandalism on state lands and an increase in damage
to certain shell middens and mounds, in particular at Hooker
Key (Blanchard 1999). As a result of this report, DEP began
to make plans to fill the fresh looter pits on Hooker Key in
order to prevent erosion and to discourage additional digging
by looters (Figure 2).
Issues of looting and stabilization were continuing
problems for the area's DEP land manager, Robert Repenning.
In discussing them, he, Blanchard, and archaeologist George
Luer wanted to establish a set of procedures for archaeological
salvage on looted state-owned sites. Such procedures would
allow retrieval of archaeological information and meet the

VOL. 61(1-2) Ti~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2008

VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

MARCH-JUNE2008

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

~ c.
~ i~8$,

'r 'I A
,*
II'
~.na-_~-~

Figure 1. Location of Hooker Key (8LL30) northwest of St. James City (adapted from United States Geological Survey
[USGS] 1958, 1981, 1987, 1994).

pressing time constraints and needs of land managers. In
February 2000, Repenning sent a letter to Jim Miller, Chief of
BAR, in which he outlined plans to backfill looter pits in state-
owned sites, and he asked about proper measures to follow.
As aresultofthis discussion, archaeologists Chris Newman
and Melissa Memory, who then were working for BAR's
Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Archaeological
Survey, made plans to visit Hooker Key in March 2000. They
were joined by Luer, as a consultant, and by Blanchard of
DEP A primary goal of the work was to establish procedures
that could serve as a set of baseline methods to use at other
looted sites in the Charlotte Harbor area and throughout the
state. This report presents those methods.

History of Site Research

Initial Research

In the Winter of 1906 or 1907, antiquarian Clarence B.
Moore visited Pine Island Sound. There, on an undetermined
island called "Wason, or Cora Key," he collected apparent
Type X left-handed whelk shell tools (Moore 1907:468). Given
the rarity of such tools, and the fact that additional specimens
have been found on Hooker Key (see below), it is possible that
Moore's "Wason, or Cora Key" was Hooker Key.

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN HoOlcitR KEY STABILIZATION

Hooker Key was first described, by name, in John
Goggin's manuscript about southern Florida archaeology
(Goggin 1949:285). In the early 1950s, the same information
in Goggin's manuscript was used to record Hooker Key as an
archaeological site by the University of Florida Archaeological
Site Survey. At that time, very little information was available.
Hooker Key was not visited, and only a general location was
noted: "Said to be 3 miles NW of S end of Pine Island in a
personal communication of Montague Tallant." The original
survey card characterized the site (apparently erroneously) as
consisting of "5 shell middens and one sand burial mound"
and it listed "burial offerings," including "silver coin beads,
glass beads" (University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey
ca. 1950). This description, however, does match nearby Gait
Island (8LL27), which is 2 km (1.2 miles) south of Hooker
Key.
Goggin's scant information became the basis for listing
Hooker Key as 8LL30 in the Florida Master Site File (FMSF),
maintained since the 1970s by the Florida Department of State
in Tallahassee. The FMSF, following Goggin's information,
categorized the site as a "mound/midden complex" dating
to the "Glades III/Spanish Contact" periods (again, this
characterizes Galt Island, but not Hooker Key). In 1987,
additional information about Hooker Key was not available
when it was listed with more than 750 other archaeological
and historical sites then recorded for Lee County in the FMSF.
At that time, the site's significance was "not determined"
and it was listed as "exact location unknown" (Austin 1987:
Appendix A).
In 1988, a single shell midden on Hooker Key was
located and visited briefly during an assessment of state-
owned archaeological sites (Luer and Archibald 1988). At
that time, the rest of the key was not surveyed, and it was
not determined if there were additional middens and a burial
mound, as reported by Goggin. However, aerial photographs
and subsequent visits by DEP personnel support the view that
Goggin's information is inaccurate, and that there is only a
single shell midden on the island.
The 1988 visit produced a written assessment of the shell
midden on Hooker Key, including its condition, general shell
composition, and vegetation. In addition, a plan view sketch
map of the midden's general outline was produced (Luer and
Archibald 1988). The map includes locations of the landing,
sizeable trees, and an abandoned "cistern." Surface collecting
yielded several shell tools, including two left-handed whelk
shell "Type X" (also called "Type E") artifacts.

Site Vandalism

In 1988, seven looter pits and apparent disturbances were
noted on the sketch map of the Hooker Key shell midden (Luer
and Archibald 1988). Three were large, old holes located on
or above the 5 ft contour line. A fourth possible hole, near the
western edge of the site, between the 2 ft and 5 ft contour lines,
appeared to have been dug recently and refilled. A fifth, fairly
fresh pit was on the midden's steeply sloping northeastern edge,
near the base of a gumbo limbo tree (a common juxtaposition
for treasure-hunters' holes). It measured 2 m (6 ft) east-west,
1.3 m (4 ft) north-south, and 1 m (3 ft) in depth. Some of

Figure 3. A fresh looter pit at Hooker Key in May 1999.
Judy Ott of DEP stands next to a profile mapped in April
1999 (Patton 2000:185). This profile was a small part of a
very large looter pit labeled Vandal Pit A in March 2000.
Photograph by Charles Blanchard, courtesy of Charlotte
Harbor Preserve State Park.

its sides were undercut. In 1988, a horse conch columella
hammer was collected from spoil next to this hole. It and other
items recovered by Luer and Archibald from the site's surface
in 1988 are curated in Tallahassee (BAR accession number
90.034).
In the late 1990s, Hooker Key suffered a new surge in
vandalism. Looters dug two sizeable pits into the midden's
steep, eastern, "back" side. The digging caused substantial
damage and posed a significant threat to the site. It resembled
looting at nearby Josslyn and Mason islands (see this issue).
In April 1999, Bob Coughter, field assistant for Robert
Patton's state-funded survey and planning grant, visited
Hooker Key (Coughter 1999). He excavated a 50 x 50 cm test
in the midden and profiled the largest of the two new looter
pits, the one in the northeastern edge of the midden (Figure
3). It was close to the hole observed by Luer and Archibald in
1988, near the base of a gumbo limbo tree (described above).
Coughter collected five provenienced radiocarbon samples,
but lacked funds for dates (Patton 2000:100-102, 139, 184-
185). These 1999 materials are curated in Tallahassee (BAR
accession number 00.115). Because only a few shell artifacts
and no pottery sherds were found, the age of the midden
remained unclear.

CARL Response

The two new gaping holes at Hooker Key led to
Repenning's letter to Miller in February 2000 (above) and to
the project described here. The salvage methods we used at
Hooker Key in March 2000 were basic and straightforward.
Because CARL archaeologists Newman and Memory were
involved, a Rule 1A-32 archaeological research permit was
not required from their own agency (BAR). However, for
all other individuals (including DEP personnel) who plan to
deal with archaeological or historical resources on state land,
obtaining this permit is mandatory before any work. A permit
application is available from BAR in Tallahassee.

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

1

Figure 4. Contour map of Hooker Key in March 2000, based on GPS and GIS data and transit measurements (Appendix
1). Note the locations of Vandal Pits A and B as well as the rectangular cistern or storm shelter.

On arriving at the site, we proceeded to make an outline
map of the shell midden. One of us (Memory) walked around
the site, following the high tide line. As she walked, Memory
took positions using a backpack with a global positioning
system (GPS). The instrument had data storage capability, and
it integrated the data into a Geographic Information System
(GIS) using ArcView 3.1 software. These data produced the
midden outline in Figures 2 and 4.
Meanwhile, we noted features for our map. These included
several old looter pits, and both pits dug in the late 1990s. We
labeled a very large one in the midden's northeastern edge as
"Vandal Pit A." The second smaller one, located farther south,
we designated "Vandal Pit B." And, we took notes about a
historic period concrete cistern or storm shelter.
After we collected these data, we made a topographic map
of the midden using a transit and stadia rod (Figure 4). We
established a central survey point on the southeastern corner
of the cistern or storm shelter. While taking measurements, we
were careful not to harm sensitive shell midden vegetation.
It included trees and bushes, such as white stopper (Eugenia
axillaris), Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), gumbo

limbo (Bursera simaruba), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and
indigo berry (Randia aculeata).
Then, we focused our attention on Vandal Pit B, which
we decided to profile and study. As we worked, we made a
collection of cultural remains (e.g., artifacts, faunal bones, and
shells) from the spoil and clean-up of the pit. The remains were
evidence that would assist us in interpreting the age of the site
as well as cultural activities that took place there. We collected
them by hand and on 1/4 and 1/16-inch screens from the spoil
we removed with shovels and trowels. We placed remains in
plastic bags that we labeled according to location of origin,
and each bag was given a "field specimen number" (FS#).
At the same time, we kept a running list of FS#s in our field
notes, with brief descriptions of the contents of each bag. We
analyzed the bagged items after our fieldwork, and then placed
them in the BAR Collections Facility in Tallahassee (BAR
accession number 01.005). Lists of all materials collected are
in appendices in the original field report (Luer et al. 2001).
Vandal Pit B was wedge-shaped and oriented so that its
northwest and southwest walls cut into the slope of the shell
midden (Figure 5). Using trowels, we carefully straightened

Figure 5. Plan view of Vandal Pit B, March 2000. The north profile was 1.4 m in length and
oriented 50 degrees south of magnetic north. The west profile was 3.0 m in length and oriented
135 degrees south of magnetic north. The floor of Vandal Pit B was 30 cm above the high water
line. Approximate contour lines are in centimeters above the high water line.

and cleaned the walls, screening all dislodged materials on 1/4
inch mesh. Artifacts found during this work were bagged by
provenience and added to the FS list. After the pit's two walls
were cleaned, we measured and sketched profile maps of each
wall, calling them the "north" and "west" profiles. We used
standard equipment, including graph paper, line levels, string,
tape measures, and a compass.
While cleaning and mapping the profiles, we identified
several distinct strata, or layers of deposits. We observed these
layers carefully and wrote descriptions of them. We noted
the kinds and condition of shells, amounts and color of sand,

and other characteristics in each layer (see Luer et al. 2001:
Appendix IV).
Once the layers were labeled on our profile maps,
we collected provenienced samples of midden shells for
radiocarbon dating from undisturbed contexts (i.e., shells that
were in their original depositional location). Each context was
limited to a small area in a single layer. We selected gracile
univalve shells of two kinds, pear whelk (Busycon spiratum
pyruliodes) and small left-handed whelk (Busycon sinistrum)
shells. These shells were placed in labeled plastic bags that
were added to our FS list.

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

Tiu~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Figure 6. Vandal Pit B, view to west. Melissa Memory
(right) takes a GPS point as George Luer (on ground) re-
covers a radiocarbon sample (FS#10) from the west profile
(see Figure 7). Note glass bottles at the base of the profiles,
used to delimit them before backfilling. Photograph by
Christine Newman, courtesy of the Bureau of Archaeologi-
cal Research.

We did not observe sufficient carbonized wood to collect
for radiocarbon dating. We should note that, if charred material
is collected for dating, it should not be touched by human hands
in order to avoid contaminating it. Likewise, shells should not
be handled any more than necessary.
After collecting radiocarbon samples and mapping their
proveniences, we prepared Vandal Pit B for backfilling. We
placed an assortment of modem glass bottles at the base of
each wall in the pit (Figure 6). Then, we shoveled shells
and dirt from the spoil over them to provide a firm, angular
(buttressed) base that prevented the walls from collapsing.
Soon after our departure, Blanchard worked with
volunteers to complete the backfilling, using spoil to fill
Vandal Pit B completely. The next Winter, Blanchard and
volunteers finished backfilling Vandal Pit A in February 2002.
Besides glass bottles, they used fiberglass sheeting to separate
undisturbed deposit from backfilled spoil. In the future, another
material may prove better because fiberglass may degrade,
which may pose a health threat if pits are reopened for further
research.
Recent site visits show that the surface of filled Vandal
Pit B now conforms to the midden's original shape. Native
vegetation has become reestablished on it. It is shaded by
white stoppers and an old Jamaica dogwood tree, as well as by
tidal mangrove forest to the immediate east.

Results and Interpretations of the Project in 2000

Site Plan

Insular shell middens are typical sites in the shallow waters
around the low-lying mangrove shores of Pine Island Sound
and southern Charlotte Harbor. Many of the smaller ones are
not complex "shellworks" sites (characterized by mounds,

ridges, courts, and sometimes canals). Instead, they tend to
have comparatively simple relief, and often are shaped like an
oval, teardrop, or kidney bean in plan view. The Hooker Key
shell midden is consistent with the latter pattern.
Many of the smaller, simpler sites, including Hooker Key,
straddle an interface between open water and tidal mangrove
forest. In such cases, the portion of the midden fronting open
water is typically broad, flat, and low-lying, and might have
served as a landing and work area for the site's occupants.
In contrast, the opposite or "back" edge of such sites is often
higher and steeply sloped, dropping abruptly into mangrove
swamp. This may be a result of the site's occupants having
tended to deposit refuse toward the back edge of the site, a
process that appears to be evidenced in the profiles of Vandal
Pit B (see below). Among other examples of similarly shaped
shell middens are Mason Island (8LL65) in Pine Island Sound,
and Fines Key (8CH361) in Charlotte Harbor (see sketch maps
in Luer and Archibald 1988).

Description ofProfiles

Our "clean up" of Vandal Pit B in March 2000 produced
two adjoining profiles in the sloping, southeastern edge of the
Hooker Key midden. The plan view orientation of the profiles
is shown in Figure 5.
The larger, west profile was oriented northwest-southeast,
on an axis running 135 degrees east of magnetic north and 45
degrees west of magnetic north. The smaller, north profile was
oriented east-northeast by west-southwest, on an axis running
50 degrees east of magnetic north and 130 degrees west of
magnetic north.
Because we did not want to disturb more shell midden than
was necessary, the bottoms of our profiles stopped soon after
we began to enter undisturbed deposit. Thus, additional shell
midden deposit continued below each profile, and it formed
the floor of Vandal Pit B. This arbitrary floor was located 30
cm (1 ft) above the muddy surface of the mangrove forest to
the east of Vandal Pit B.
Figures 7 and 8 show the stratification in the profiles. We
labeled the strata in sequence, from top to bottom, as Layers 1
through 6. A very thin accumulation of humus and dry leaves
formed the ground surface on top of Layer 1. Layer 5 was
visible at the base of the profiles and formed the floor of most
of Vandal Pit B. Using trowels to dig into the floor of the
looter pit, only the top of Layer 6 was excavated at the base of
the north profile. Radiocarbon samples, consisting of marine
shells, were removed from six locations in the profiles. The
field report provides descriptions of the layers in the profiles
(Luer et al. 2001:Appendix IV).

Radiocarbon Dates

Our Results. Three radiocarbon dates (Table 1) were
obtained from samples of marine shells collected from specific
locations in the profiles of Vandal Pit B (Figures 7 and 8).
The composition of these samples, FS#8, #10, and #11, are
described in Luer et al. (2001:Appendix I). All were mollusc
shells representing food refuse. That is, Indians gathered the
molluscs from shallow, estuarine waters and then discarded

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN HOOKER Kicv STABILIZATION

30cm nothwet

comers

------ LLycr6
unexcav atcd

Figure 7. West profile of Vandal Pit B. FS#9 through #12
and FS#15 mark the locations where radiocarbon samples
were collected.

surface, 30cm
northwest
comm-
L ay4 I

Figure 8. North profile of Vandal Pit B. FS#8 marks the
location where a radiocarbon sample was collected.

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Vandal Pit B, Hooker Key (8LL30). Layer 2 is the shallowest of the
three layers listed, with Layer 6 being deepest. The measured and conventional ages are 1 sigma ranges
expressed in radiocarbon years B.P. (before present; present = A.D. 1950). Asterisks indicate that the
C13/C12 ratios were estimated by Beta Analytic, Inc., as 0.0 o/oo, based on values typical of marine shell,
and that the derived conventional and calibrated ages incorporate these estimates. The calibrated date
ranges are at 2 sigma and were provided by Beta Analytic based on the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Cali-
bration. Also see the text for a fourth radiocarbon date obtained by Patton (2001) from Hooker Key.

their shells on the Hooker Key midden after removing their
soft parts (the "meat") for food.
The dates are "good" dates because their measured and
conventional ages are close together or overlap. Indeed, those
for FS#8 and #10 overlap at only 1 sigma (68% probability),
and thus can be considered to be the same age. The ages for
FS#10 and #11 meet or overlap at 2 sigma (95% probability),
and thus also can be considered to be the same age. These
dates indicate that the entire profiled portion of the midden
is close in age. This is consistent with the rapid deposition
indicated by the stratification (see below).
A possible anomaly is suggested by the oldest date
(FS#11) being from near the top of the profile (Layer 2),
whereas the youngest date (FS#8) is from the bottom (Layer
6). Their measured and conventional ages do not overlap at
2 sigma, indicating that they are not the same age. This is
inconsistent with the theory that older materials are generally
found in deeper layers. However, it may not be a problem
because radiocarbon dates represent probability age ranges,
and various age values are typical within sets of dates. It is
possible that if these two samples were rerun, their age ranges
could move closer together. It also is possible that if C'3/C12
ratios had been obtained, these ages could have moved closer
together.
Nonetheless, the two dates seem at odds with their
proveniences. A mix-up of samples during processing or
dating might have happened. The stratification observed in

the profiles argues against intrusion or inversion of deposits.
Regardless of possible reasons for their variance, however,
all three dates from Vandal Pit B need to be viewed together,
as a set, in determining an age. This is a good example why
researchers should follow the method of obtaining multiple
dates in order to gain a better age determination than only one
or two dates can provide.
The C13/C12 ratios in Table 1 are estimates. We did not
obtain measured ratios because we did not request them,
which was an oversight. Ratios of C13/C12 should be obtained
for all radiocarbon samples that are dated. Such ratios are
now provided as standard parts of a radiocarbon analysis
because the ratios are needed to produce conventional ages.
Conventional ages should be as accurate as possible because
they are used to estimate calibrated dates.
Table 1 also lists calibrated date ranges supplied by Beta
Analytic. The calibrated date ranges indicate that Layers 2
through 6 were deposited in the early to middle Caloosahatchee
I Period (ca. 500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 100). This is important
information because the Hooker Key shell midden had not
been dated previously, and its age was unknown. Such an age
is consistent with the kinds of shell tools from Vandal Pit B
(see below).
Patton's Date. We should note that, subsequent to our
radiocarbon analyses, a single radiocarbon sample of marine
shell from the 50 x 50 cm test unit (dug by Coughter in April
1999, see above) was dated by Patton (2001:295, Figure

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

36). It came from Stratum II, 30-40 cm below the surface,
and yielded a 1 sigma measured age of 2160 +/- 60 and a
conventional (corrected) age of 2560 +/- 60 (Beta-152862).
The latter produces a 2 sigma calibrated date range of cal 400
to 160 B.C. (Patton 2001:295, 482).
Patton's radiocarbon date is consistent with the three we
obtained. Indeed, its measured result overlaps at 2 sigma with
all three of our dates, which indicates that it is the same age
as our dates. This suggests that a portion of the Hooker Key
midden located 25 m north-northeast of the cistern (where
Coughter's test unit was located [Patton 2001:Figure 36]) is
the same age as the part of the midden that we dated (located
17 m southeast of the cistern) (Figures 2 and 4). Also lending
support to the similar age of these two areas of the site is the
recovery of two Type X whelk shell tools during backfilling of
Vandal Pit A (see below), which resemble Type X whelk shell
tools from Vandal Pit B.
Comparisons. Knowing the age of Hooker Key is useful.
It is older than many sites in Pine Island Sound, but it is
contemporary with two other shell midden deposits that have
been identified thus far. One is near the center of Josslyn Island
(8LL32), where two similar radiocarbon dates were obtained
from a component (Test Pit A-l, Levels 22 and 32) buried
under more recent shell midden layers (Marquardt 1992a: 11,
18, Table 1, Figures 2 and 4). Another is on south-central
Useppa Island (8LL51), where three similar radiocarbon
dates were obtained (Backhoe Test 3 and Operation D, Lot
1-11, Float #3) from a series of midden deposits dating to
throughout the Caloosahatchee I Period (Marquardt 1999a:
Table 2, 1999b:85-89).

Artifacts

We recovered pottery sherds and shell artifacts from
the spoil and in the profiles of Vandal Pit B (see Luer et al.
2001:Appendix II). Although few in number, the sherds are
noteworthy because pottery had not been collected from
Hooker Key during earlier research. We found nine sand-
tempered plain body sherds, in addition to one chalky ware
body sherd with amorphous stamped impressions on its outer
surface. We also collected some pieces of limestone, which are
common in local middens.
Shell artifacts represent several kinds of hammering
and cutting-edged tools. The hammering tools might have
functioned in food extraction, while the cutting-edged tools
probably were used to hew or cut wood. These tools comprise
a small sample, but some interpretations can be based on
them.
Among the most interesting are four specimens of Type X
(also called "Type E") left-handed whelk shell artifacts (BAR
01.005). They are measured and described in greater detail
elsewhere (see article by Luer, this issue). Three of them are
cutting-edged tools with perforations in the top of the shell,
above the edge of the shoulder. One specimen (FS#3) has a
single perforation a short distance behind the modified (cut
back) outer lip. The other specimens (FS#1 and #6) have a
perforation in the same general location, plus a second one
approximately 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction

from the end of the suture. (The latter is in the same area as
the initial perforation on whelk shell tool blanks see Luer et
al. 1986:Figure 1).
Specimen FS#6 is a heavy, robust, moderate-size shell
that had a wide cutting edge (20 mm) that probably was used
in heavy-duty work. Specimens FS#1 and #3 are small shells
that probably functioned in lighter work. The pointed, narrow
(11 mm) cutting edge of specimen FS#3 seems to have been
intended for detailed work.
A fourth Type X whelk shell tool (FS#7) appears to be an
unfinished cutting-edged tool. It is a small shell (resembling
FS#1 and #3) with two perforations in its top, a modified (cut
back) outer lip, and a reduced columella and siphonal canal.
The basal end of the columella and adjoining outer lip are
beveled, but they have not been ground to a cutting edge, nor
do they show use-wear from hammering.
Two more Type X whelk shell artifacts were collected by
Blanchard during backfilling of Vandal Pit A in February 2002.
One is a sizeable shell, and the other is a small one. Each has
its columella and inner whorls removed. In 1988, I found two
Type X tools on the surface of the Hooker Key midden (Luer
and Archibald 1988:8LL30). One is a cutting-edged tool with
its bit end missing, and the other is a broken Type X tool that
was used as a pounder (a portion of its body whorl is missing,
and its shoulder is battered) (both are BAR 90.034.01).
Type X shell tools originally were fastened to wooden
handles. The handle apparently was inserted through the shell's
aperture and then out through the perforation located near the
modified lip (Moore 1921; Wheeler and McGee 1994:365).
The second perforation might have helped secure lashings to
the shell and handle. It tends to be directly opposite the other
perforation in the top of the shell.
The radiocarbon dates from Vandal Pit B (above) are of
interest because they are consistent with the interpretation
that Type X shell tools were used into the early and middle
Manasota and Caloosahatchee I periods, and that they led to
a "transitional" form of hafted shell tool, called "Type AX."
Type AX shell tools were found in contexts radiocarbon dated
to the middle Manasota Period, ca. 100 B.C. to ca. A.D. 400,
at the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96) in Sarasota (Luer
1992:247-249).
In the Pine Island area, Type X shell cutting-edged
tools also have been found at Calusa Island (8LL45), east of
Bokeelia (Marquardt 1992b:198). There, judging by other
cultural materials found at Calusa Island (Luer 1989:252),
Type X shell tools may date to the Terminal Archaic or Florida
Transitional Period (ca. 1,000 B.C. to 500 B.C.), which is an
earlier time period than the Manasota and Caloosahatchee I
periods.
Some other shell tools found in Vandal Pit B include three
left-handed whelk body whorl adze/celts as well as columella
cutting-edged tools and hammers fashioned from left handed
whelk and horse conch columellae (Luer et al. 2001:Appendix
II). These also appear to be tool forms used during the late
Archaic and Florida Transitional periods and that continued
to be used into the early to middle Caloosahatchee I Period. In
addition, fragments of three quahog valve anvil/hammers also
were collected.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

LUER, MEMORY, AINI) NEWMAN HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

We should note that the lack of certain kinds of later (more
recent) shell tools is consistent with the radiocarbon dates and
the recovered shell tool assemblage. Some more recent kinds
of shell tools that were not found in Vandal Pit B include Type
A and B whelk shell cutting-edged tools and Type C and D
whelk shell hammers.

Faunal Remains

As we shoveled disturbed material in Vandal Pit B, we
made gross observations of faunal remains. Mollusc shells,
representing food refuse, were throughout the spoil. Abundant
shells were of the brown tulip (Fasciolaria tulipa), banded
tulip (Fasciolaria lilium hunteria), pear whelk, left-handed
whelk, king's crown (Melongena corona), and eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica). Bay scallop (Argopecten irradiens
concentricus) valves were fewer, but common. Fragments of
quahog (Mercenaria campechiensis) valves were less common.
Rare shells included fighting conch (Strombus alatus), sunray
venus (Macrocallista nimbosa), pen shell (Atrina sp.), apple
murex (Phyllonotus pomum), and moon snail (Polinices
duplicatus) shells.
We did not observe a number of other kinds of shells.
They include shells of surf clam (Spisula solidissima similis),
giant cockle (Dinocardium robustum vanhyningi), rose cockle
(Trachycardium egmontianum), ribbed mussel (Geukensia
demissa granosissima), and Carolina marsh clam (Polymesoda
carolina). Such shells apparently were not present in Vandal
Pit B (or they were so infrequent that we failed to note them).
The kinds of shells in the midden reflect the molluscs
that were available for gathering from the extensive turtle
grass beds and mangrove margins of southern Pine Island
Sound. Pear whelks, left-handed whelks, and brown tulips
are common in local turtle grass habitat. Bay scallop valves
were large, suggesting summertime gathering of mature
individuals from turtle grass beds. King's crowns are common
in tidal areas year-round, especially on oyster beds. Oyster
shell morphology (see Luer 2002:60) indicates that they were
collected from three different habitats: 1) shallow "coon bar,"
2) deeper channel, and 3) red mangrove prop roots. Oyster
shells that grew on prop roots have long, curved attachment
scars.
The absence of surf clam valves, and the rarity of fighting
conch shells, suggest that the barrier islands to the west were
not part of the catchment area represented by the shells in
Vandal Pit B. Similarly, the lack of Carolina marsh clam valves
suggests that salt marshes were not found in the catchment area
represented by Layers 1 through 6. Other invertebrate material
probably representing food remains include crab (Brachyura)
claw fragments. Crabs also were available in the shallows of
Pine Island Sound.
Bone was not abundant, but by screening midden material
on a fine screen, we did collect some remains. Vertebrate
remains include vertebral centra of ray (Rajiformes) and shark
(Carcharhiniformes) as well as bony fish vertebrae, including
those of mullet (Mugil sp.). Other bony fish remains include
sea catfish (Ariidae) otoliths, sand sea trout (Cynoscion
arenarius) and spotted sea trout (C. nebulosus) ototliths, a rib

fragment and a cleithrum fragment from jack (Caranx sp.),
and a sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) maxilla
fragment. Turtle (Testudines) shell fragments also were
present, including carapace fragments from diamondback
terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin).
Fuller analyses of vertebrate and invertebrate remains
dating to the early to middle Caloosahatchee I Period are
available for nearby Josslyn Island and come from shell
midden samples in Test Pit A-i (Levels 22 and 32) (Walker
1992:272-274, 292, Tables 7, 9, B12, and B13). Seasonality
studies of faunal remains dating to the middle Caloosahatchee
I Period have been conducted on samples from Useppa Island
(flotation samples 3 and 4 from Operation D, Lot II-11, Zone
4) (Marquardt 1999b:87, Table 1, Figures 4 and 5; Quitmyer
and Massaro 1999).
Ecofacts (remains from the natural environment that were
not used or modified by humans) are another class of faunal
remains. At Vandal Pit B, they consist of small mollusc shells.
They were common in the dark dirt zones of Layers 1, 3, and
5.
These ecofacts can be separated into two groups. Some
were shells of small, terrestrial snails (Polygyra sp.), which
are common on shell middens and mounds. Others were shells
of molluscs that live in the tidal zone or in very shallow water.
These include at least six different kinds: Atlantic modulus
(Modulus modulus), fly-specked cerith (Cerithium muscarum),
ladder horn shell (Cerithidea scalariformis), coffee bean shell
(Melampus coffeus), apparent mud snail (cf. Nassarius vibex),
and broad-ribbed cardita (Carditamerafloridana). Unlike the
faunal remains described above, these shells do not represent
food refuse. Their significance and possible origins in the shell
midden are discussed below (see "Interpretation of Strata").
Shells of another kind of snail may be either ecofacts or
food refuse. These are shells of the carnivorous terrestrial snail,
Euglandina rosea. They were scattered in the midden profiles,
especially in the bottom of Layer 1 and the top of Layer 2.

Archaeobotanical Remains

Small pieces of carbonized wood are found commonly in
shell midden deposits, and the midden at Vandal Pit B was no
exception (e.g., FS#5). In addition, fragments of what appeared
to be remains of sugarberry (Celtis sp.) seeds were observed
on the 1/16 in screen. Sugarberry trees grow commonly in
disturbed soil. Their seeds may be ecofacts derived from trees
that grew on the midden, or from seeds dropped by birds. They
also may represent food refuse of the Indians. Sugarberry trees
were not observed growing on the site today, but they grow in
the vicinity (e.g., on the Josslyn Island shell midden).
The identification of archaeobotanical remains dating to
the early to middle Caloosahatchee I Period at Josslyn Island's
Test Pit A-l (Levels 22 and 32) should be noted (Scarry and
Newsom 1992:381,386,392-393, Tables 8, 12, and 22, Figures
3 and 6). Additional samples of the middle Caloosahatchee I
Period have been identified at Useppa Island from Operation D,
Lot II-11 (Zone 4, flotation samples 3 and 4) (Scarry 1999).

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Interpretation of Strata

Midden Deposits. As is typical of many shell middens in
west-central and southwest Florida, we found two contrasting,
general types of midden deposit. These are known as "trash"
versus "habitation" strata, the latter having formed on a
living area (e.g., Bullen and Bullen 1956:8; Luer 1977:45-46,
2007:31-40, Figures 2-1 through 2-5).
In Vandal Pit B, Layers 2, 4, and 6 are trash strata. They
are comparatively thick layers composed mostly of whole
or slightly broken mollusc shells. These strata are "clean" in
that they are relatively free of dark sand and have much air
space between shells. They represent layers of relatively rapid
accumulation. Some of their broken shells were damaged by
aboriginal food extraction (e.g., broken quahog valves).
Most of the larger shells in these layers have their longest
axis oriented parallel to the general orientation of the layer
in which they are located. Thus, many of these shells have a
generally horizontal, or slightly sloping orientation, depending
on the orientation of the surrounding stratum. However, where
there were "gaps" between larger shells, we observed smaller
shells that were lodged at varied angles.
The phenomenon of shells lying parallel with layering has
been observed in other Florida shell middens, such as in the
Palmetto Lane Midden in Sarasota (Luer 1992:246), and is a
reflection of depositional processes. Such shells accumulated
incrementally as the Indians tossed or spread them onto a
refuse area. They are not jumbled from bulk redeposition, as
in constructional (mound-building) deposits.
In contrast, Layers 1, 3, and 5 are habitation strata that
represent former surfaces ofthe midden. They are comparatively
thin, suggesting that habitation was not intensive (e.g., of brief
duration or located at a distance). These habitation layers
consist of much dark sand (sand plus fine organic material)
as well as shells that are crushed and broken, probably from
having been walked on.
Layers 1, 3, and 5 each appear to have been exposed for at
least several years,judging by their large numbers of tiny shells
of the terrestrial snail (Polygyra sp.). These snails probably
lived on the midden surface and apparently accumulated
naturally. During those times, some cultural refuse also was
discarded on these surfaces, such as fragments of oyster and
king's crown shells, as well as sherds, shell tools, and shell
tool fragments. Sherds and shell tools appeared to be more
common in these dark strata than in adjacent trash strata.
Layers 1, 3, and 5 also contain many shells of small
molluscs that live in the tidal zone, or in very shallow water.
These shells probably were brought to the site inadvertently
when Indians obtained sandy mud from nearby tidal areas and
dumped it on the shell midden. The Indians probably obtained
such sand routinely and used it for sanitation and convenience.
That is, they could use the sand to cover foul-smelling shells,
bones, fish entrails, and other decomposing refuse. The Indians
also could use it to cover sharp shells to make surfaces that
could be walked on.
Depositional Patterns. In the profiles of Vandal Pit B, the
strata suggest patterns of site accretion and use. The shapes of
Layers 1 through 5 show that the strata accumulated upward

and outward. They indicate that as the midden grew upward,
it spilled outward to cover former edges of the midden.
Moreover, the shapes of the layers, and the orientations of
their shells, suggest that material was being discarded from the
higher portion of the midden situated to the northwest. Thus,
the higher portion of the midden appears to have held a living
area from which refuse tended to be deposited toward the rear
of the site.
To reiterate, Layers 1 through 6 appear to represent a
classic midden accumulation of successive layers of trash
disposal and habitation. After a sizeable volume of discarded
food shells covered an area, the Indians apparently capped it
with sandy mud that they dug from nearby intertidal areas.
They might have carried the mud in baskets and dumped it
over refuse as a sanitary measure (especially to diminish the
stench of rotting shellfish and fish remains). Once refuse was
covered, the area appears to have been walked on and used,
accumulating some habitation debris and many terrestrial snail
shells. The sequence of trash disposal, followed by capping,
happened three times in our profiles.
Furthermore, the shapes of Layers 1 through 5 and the
orientations of their shells show that large volumes of food
shells were being discarded from a locus that was uphill and to
the northwest of Vandal Pit B. In other words, shell refuse was
tossed downhill toward the southeast, probably from a living
area that was on the central, high portion of the site.
This suggests a scenario of site formation and a testable
hypothesis of different functional areas in different locations
on the site through time. The flat, western portion ofthe midden
could be the "front" of the site that faced open water and that
functioned as a landing for canoes as well as an activity or
work area (e.g., mending and drying fish nets). During an
initial phase of site habitation, the Indians could have discarded
midden debris to the east or "rear" of the landing, and a shell
midden grew upward and eastward. Then, the midden itself,
overlooking the landing, became a locus of habitation and
afforded the Indians higher and drier ground, breezes (cooler
and freer of insects), and a good view over the surrounding
area. As the Indians camped or lived on the elevated midden,
they continued to discard refuse toward the "back" or "rear" of
the site (to the southeast, east, and northeast), creating its high,
steep slope and accounting for the classic midden deposits we
encountered in Vandal Pit B.

Historic Component

The remains of a concrete cistern or storm shelter (Figure
9) are on the highest elevated area of the Hooker Key shell
midden. It probably dates to the early twentieth century.
Intruding downward into the midden, its four walls are still
vertical, although growth of a large strangler fig tree on its
northwestern comer is causing them to split, and some of the
top ofthe northern wall has fallen outward. This wall was intact
when Luer and Archibald observed the structure in 1988.
Presumably, this concrete structure originally was
associated with a frame shack, but traces of that possible
structure were not observed and apparently have disappeared
through decomposition or removal from the site. A vertical

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

Figure 9. Concrete cistern or storm shelter on Hooker
Key, March 2000. View from the northeast. Note the large
strangler fig tree (on the right) on its northwestern corner.
Photograph by Charles Blanchard, courtesy of Charlotte
Harbor Preserve State Park.

metal pipe (perhaps the remains of a well?) was observed
protruding from the surface of the midden 10 to 20 m to the
southwest of the concrete structure.
We also saw historic period refuse on the surface to the
west of the shell midden. Here, we recovered several glass
bottle and crockery fragments, which appear to date to the
early twentieth century. This area, in the mangrove forest
between the midden and open water, probably once led to a
dock or landing at the edge of the mangroves to the west of
the midden.
We made some detailed observations about the cistern or
storm shelter (Figure 9). A hole must have been dug into the
shell midden prior to its construction. Then, it was built in situ
by pouring incremental additions of concrete into what appears
to have been a rough, wooden form lined with tar paper. The
aggregate added to the concrete was a dense mixture of clean,
fine fragments of small seashells and a few large fragments of
oyster shell. Once poured, the exposed exterior and interior
surfaces of the walls were faced with a thin coat of plaster
(0.5-1 cm thick). The top surface of the walls was faced with a
similar plaster coat. The plaster then was finished roughly with
sets of linear streaks or striations, some overlapping, possibly
created with a brush. Samples of the plaster and concrete were
collected.
The concrete walls are of variable length and thickness.
In plan view, they form a rectangle. One of the long sides, the
southern wall, has an exterior length of 3.2 m (125 in) and an
interior length of 2.8 m (110 in). One of the short sides, the
eastern wall, has an exterior length of 1.95 m (77 in) and an
interior length of 1.68 m (66 in). The interior corners have
recessed vertical grooves, possibly from wooden uprights
that supported the covers of the wooden form in which the
concrete was poured. The impressions of horizontal boards in
the concrete walls suggest that boards creating the form had
been nailed to some kind of upright frame.

Today, the leafy floor inside the partially filled structure
is 1.22 m (48 in) below the top of the southeastern corer and
1.14 m (45 in) below the top of the southwestern corer. An
original floor was not observed, as it is buried under soil and
leaves, which prevented obtaining an exact depth. The outside
heights of the walls are varied because of the uneven surface
of the surrounding midden. The freestanding outside height is
79 cm (31 in) on the western wall near the strangler fig tree,
63.5 cm (25 in) on the southern wall, and 53 cm (21 in) on
the eastern wall. Presumably, this concrete structure had a
wooden cover of some kind, whether it functioned as a cistern
(for storing rainwater) or as a storm shelter.

Conclusion

In the 1990s, looters dug two large pits in the shell
midden on state-owned Hooker Key. In early 2000, the DEP
land manager decided that the damaged areas needed to be
stabilized in order to prevent erosion and further looting.
With that goal, a team of archaeologists and DEP personnel
conducted salvage work at one of the looter pits in March
2000. The team established baseline methods for such work,
including mapping, profiling, dating, and backfilling. These
methods should be used at similarly damaged sites.
The findings provide important information about the
age and cultural affiliation of Hooker Key that was previously
unknown. Indeed, few sites or components of Hooker Key's age
are identified in the Caloosahatchee Region. Knowing where
sites and components of different time periods are located will
help immensely in future recovery of archaeological data from
the region.
Specifically, this project's profiling and radiocarbon dating
show that the Hooker Key shell midden dates to the early and
middle Caloosahatchee I Period (ca. 500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 100).
The identification of Type X (or "E") cutting-edged tools, and
of columella cutting-edged tools and hammers, from this dated
context helps to characterize a shell tool assemblage of this
period. These shell tools appear to represent a technological
stage that is intermediate between the earlier Middle and Late
Archaic and the later Caloosahatchee II and III periods. Thus,
this project identifies a site where future research could lead
to a greater understanding of the evolutionary development of
shell tools in Florida.

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we would like to thank Robert
Repenning and Chuck Blanchard of DEP for their interest and
help in this project. Jim Miller of BAR supported our request
for radiocarbon dates. Phil Buchanan of St. James City kindly
arranged our access to Galt Island, allowing comfortable
canoeing to Hooker Key. Phil Buchanan's assistance also
allowed Blanchard and the DEP backfilling crew to make
many canoe trips to the site. Brenda Swann and Bill Stanton of
the CARL Archaeological Survey kindly produced Figures 2
and 4. We especially thank Brenda Swann for her patience and
effort to make Figure 4.

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

THE FLORIDA ANThROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

References Cited

Austin, Robert J.
1987 An Archaeological Site Inventory and Zone
Management Plan for Lee County, Florida. Report
dated November. Performed for the Lee County
Department of Community Development, Division
of Planning, by Piper Archaeological Research, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida.

Blanchard, Charles E.
1999 Current Appearance and Condition of the
Archaeological Cultural Resource in the Charlotte
Harbor Aquatic and State Buffer Preserve:
Reconnaissance and Survey, January-April 1999.
Report conducted for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Tallahassee.

2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late
Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big
Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Technical Report Number 6.
Miami.

Marquardt, William H.
1992a Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental
Investigations in Southwest Florida. In Culture and
Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 9-57. Monograph 1,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, University of Florida. Gainesville.

1992b Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In
Culture and Environment in the Domain of the
Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 191-
227. Monograph 1, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

1999a An Introduction to Useppa Island. In The Archaeology
of Useppa Island, edited by William H. Marquardt,
pp. 1-22. Monograph 3, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

1999b Useppa Island in the Archaic and Caloosahatchee
Periods. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 77-98. Monograph 3,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, University of Florida. Gainesville.

of Historical Resources, by the Florida Museum of Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee
Natural History. Gainesville. 1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation,
Grove's Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County,
2001 Spatial Structure and Process of Nonagricultural Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47:350-379.
Production: Settlement Patterns and Political
Development in Precolumbian Southwest Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Quitmyer, Irvy R., and Melissa A. Massaro
1999 Seasonality and Subsistence in a Southwest Florida
Estuary: A Faunal Analysis of Precolumbian Useppa
Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 99-128. Monograph
3, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, University of Florida. Gainesville.

Scarry, C. Margaret
1999 Precolumbian Use of Plants on Useppa Island. In The
Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by William
H. Marquardt, pp. 129-137. Monograph 3, Institute
of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Scarry, C. Margaret, and Lee A. Newsom
1992 Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland.
In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the
Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 375-
401. Monograph 1, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey
ca. 1950 Undated survey card for L 30. On file, Florida
Museum of Natural History. Gainesville.

Walker, Karen J.
1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's
Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and
Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H.
Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Monograph 1, Institute
of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

LUER, MEMORY, AND NEWMAN

HOOKER KEY STABILIZATION

Appendix 1. Topographic data, Hooker Key (8LL30), March 3, 2000. These data are plotted in Figure 4.
The datum is a piece of metal rebar driven into the ground close to the southeast (SE) outside corner of
the cistern/storm shelter. The instrument height was 147 cm above the ground surface at that location.
The zero elevation is the surface of the tidal mud in the mangrove forest surrounding the Hooker Key
shell midden. The elevation at the datum is 3.16 m. Thus, the elevation of the instrument was 4.63 m
(463 cm), from which stadia rod readings are subtracted in order to obtain elevations.

Josslyn Island is located in Pine Island Sound,
approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) south of Pineland and 29 km
(18 mi) west of downtown Fort Myers on the southwestern
coast of Florida (Figure 1). The island's archaeological site
(8LL32) has suffered from digging by looters. The looting has
threatened the site's well-preserved shell middens and other
notable site features. In 1989, the island was sold to the State
of Florida so that it could be preserved, and with the hope that
state authorities could put an end to looting.
In August 2000, state police succeeded in arresting looters
on Josslyn Island. In response, archaeologists in February,
2001, mapped stratification in the looters' pit and removed
four samples for radiocarbon dating. The resulting calibrated
age range is ca. cal A.D. 900 to 1300, which falls in the
Caloosahatchee IIB (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200) and Caloosahatchee
III (ca. A.D. 1200 to 1350) periods.
This archaeological work adds to our knowledge of a
previously undated portion of Josslyn Island, a site listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. The project was part of
an ongoing program to stabilize damaged state-owned sites by
the land-managing agency, the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), and the agency charged with managing
archaeological resources, the Bureau of Archaeological
Research (BAR).

Background

Josslyn Island suffered illegal digging through the 1980s
and 1990s. The vandalism was not caused by treasure hunters,
as at some other sites in the region. Instead, the destruction
was the work of thieves, who were digging up midden shells
to sell for profit.
In August 2000, looters were caught digging on the
island and arrested. The island's DEP land manager, Robert
Repenning, decided that the looters' large pit needed to be
stabilized and filled. He summoned archaeologists to conduct
limited profiling and to collect radiocarbon samples according
to established procedures for state-owned archaeological sites
(e.g., Luer et al. 2001). This report presents results of that
effort and reviews pertinent archaeological work related to
looting and other alterations to Josslyn Island up to the present
time.

History of Impacts

Josslyn Island suffered some deterioration in the 1880s.
In 1885, its shell mounds were farmed by a "Capt. Josselyn"
who grew tomatoes, onions, beets, turnips, and lettuce, and

who possessed pomegranates, limes, and lemons (Douglass
1881-1885).' By the mid-1890s, the island was abandoned and
overgrown (Cushing 1897; Moore 1900a). It was reoccupied
by the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by a historic
aerial photograph (Figure 2) and by surface remains that are
visible today, including glass and iron fragments. Despite these
activities, however, the site remained in excellent condition
(Plowden 1951; Milanich 1977).

Randell Period (1970-1989)

Early Visits. Josslyn Island was purchased in 1970 by
Patricia and Donald Randell, residents of nearby Pineland. The
Randells were impressed by Josslyn Island's shell mounds and
by the beauty of its gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba) trees,
and they resolved to protect them. They encouraged the State
of Florida to assess the site on Josslyn Island, leading to a visit
by a state archaeologist, Carlos Martinez (1976), and to the
State's listing of the site in the National Register of Historic
Places (Scarry 1978). At that time, the first observations of
looting were noted. Martinez wrote:
Some pot-holing has taken place on the site,
principally near the shore. The total number of such
holes noted during the inspection was 6 or 7 with the
average hole being less than one meter in diameter
and less than V2 meter deep and perhaps two meters
wide. Considering the large size of the site and depth
of deposits, these disturbances are considered minor,
but steps should be taken to prevent their recurring.
[Martinez 1976:8]
My Initial Visits. In 1979, I met the Randells during
one of my research trips to the Pineland Site. I followed up
by sending them a letter about Pineland and Josslyn Island,
stating that "contour maps of both sites should be prepared"
(Luer 1979). They invited me to return, and so I reread historic
descriptions of both sites, including those by Cushing (1897)
and Moore (1900a).
In June 1980, Iwent to Josslyn Island several times with the
Randells' help and permission. The island was difficult to reach
because it was surrounded by very shallow water and lacked
a dock. The landing was a muddy clearing among mangroves
on the site's western edge. Near the landing, I observed several
weathered looter pits, probably ones mentioned by Martinez.
I also found an olive jar sherd, south of the landing, which
suggests some use of the site probably during the latter portion
of the Spanish contact period (ca. A.D. 1700 to 1830).
Just inland and northeast of the landing, I saw a patch of
loose shells, including many large left-handed whelk shells.

They were strewn across the surface, along the edge of the
site.2 I interpreted them as shells that a nineteenth-century
farmer had grubbed up and tossed out of the way. Similar piles
observed by Moore consisted of:

... a loose heap of large shells, mostly conchs. Such
heaps are very frequently met with on the shell islands
which have been cultivated, since the large shells
interfere with the hoe and the plow. At Chokoloskee,

30

A

RPUGLJW$a

W-qq P6

LUER LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

Figure 2. Historic aerial photograph of Josslyn Island.
Note the ramp leading to the southwest from the house,
or shack, toward the shore and the apparent net spreads
in the water (United States Department of Agriculture
1944).

in the Ten Thousand Islands, great piles and ridges
of these shells, collected within the last few years,
are to be seen. At Josselyn Key are similar heaps of
shells thrown loosely together, which Robert Allen,
the captain of our steamer, informed us he had seen in
process of collection by Josselyn, the former owner
of the key. [Moore 1900a:365-366]
From the landing, I used my compass and walked due
eastward into the site. I crossed several steep slopes, but found
the vegetation thick and the going rough. I returned to the
landing, deciding to let existing landmarks guide me.
Thus, I followed a narrow, winding footpath toward the
southeast (Figure 3:dashed line). The path wound over the
midden and across a low, wet channel, and then it led up the
steep side of a high shell ridge and down its other side. The
ridge supported a dense growth of stopper (Eugenia spp.) and
gumbo limbo trees.3 As I walked, I made rough plan sketches of
the mounds and other features. The task was difficult because
of dense vegetation and complex topography.4
The path ascended another high shell elevation with a
small, concrete cistern in its flat summit (Figure 3). A narrow,
earthen ramp led downward from the summit, toward the
southwest. Near the base of the ramp, both its sides were faced

Figure 3. The Josslyn Island site. This plan is based on my 1980 sketches, showing the footpath (dashed line) leaving the
landing and crossing undulating topography toward the southeast. My continued walk (see text) is shown by a dotted line.
Contours are in feet (1 ft = approximate high tide line) and are rough estimates, as is the scale (hindered by dense vegetation
and few views to water).

LUER

LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Pine Island Sound approx.

Figure 4. The Josslyn Island site, with some site features labeled. Note Shell Elevations 1 through 7. An "x" marks the lo-
cation of Looter Pit B in Shell Elevation 2. Ticked lines show low areas. Elevated flat areas (labeled "a" and "b") flank the
interior end of the valley (between Shell Elevations 4 and 5) and they also flank a gate-like feature (between Shell Elevations
5 and 7). Also note the north-south ridge on the eastern side of Shell Elevation 5.

with numerous large whelk shells and a few large horse conch
shells.5 These shell facings were very similar to one described
by Cushing (1897:10-11, Plate XXIX) on nearby Demorey
Key, which Moore (1900a:364-366) demonstrated to be of
historic, probable nineteenth-century origin. In his field notes,
Moore wrote:
On Josselyn's Key are remains of a wall of conch
shells similar to the wall figured by Cushing on
Demorey's Key. Capt. Robert Allen, familiar with
these waters for 15 yrs., says [he] has visited old
Mr. Josslyn who lived on the key and that the conch
shell wall on Josslyn Key was made by him. [Moore
1900b:31-32]
Continuing on, the path ascended another high shell
mound, and then descended into a shady, deep valley (Figure
3). This valley led into the site from its southern edge. In the
western side of this valley, vandals had dug a large hole.
Crossing the deep valley, I ascended yet another high
shell mound, which rose to a spacious, elevated flat area.
Leaving the path, I walked across its northern portion, which
was clear of vegetation and covered with sun-bleached, loose
shells. This area had been disturbed by digging years earlier.
Here, I collected pottery fragments from the surface, including
a St. Johns Check Stamped sherd and a highly oxidized (pink-
colored) Belle Glade Plain sherd.6
East of this clearing, dense vegetation resumed. I crossed
over a distinct north-south ridge (Figure 3) and then descended
the mound's steep, gumbo-limbo shaded, eastern side. From
its base, I walked out into a tidal "court" rimmed by shell

embankments. This undoubtedly was the deep, rectangular
court described by Cushing (1897:9). It was at the southeastern
corner of the site (Figure 3).
I inspected the court and its embankments, which were very
well formed and appeared to be intentionally shaped. A narrow
outlet from its northwestern corer led back into the interior
of the site. I followed it a short distance northward, passing
yet another shell mound to the east. To the west, I ascended
a "gate-like" opening between shell mounds and then walked
westward across an elevated flat area or "platform" (Figure 3:
dotted line). This platform was north of the deep valley, and it
was "behind" and lower than the outer, southern perimeter of
shell mounds that the footpath had just led me over.
My observations compared favorably with those of
Cushing (1897). The court was still "deep and regular." His
"two extensive platforms" could equate to the two elevated,
flat areas I had crossed. Indeed, his assessment that "five very
high and steep, mound-capped elevations, sharply divided by
deep, straight channels,.. formed its [the site's] western and
southern end" (Cushing 1897:9) was essentially accurate, as I
reported in a letter to the Randells (Luer 1980).
In Figure 4, I have labeled Cushing's five shell elevations
as "1" through "5." Two additional, interior shell elevations
are labeled "6" and "7." I have enclosed several low areas
with ticked lines, such as the bottom of the deep valley
(between Shell Elevations 4 and 5) and the court (near the
site's southeastern edge). The two elevated, flat areas also are
indicated (Figure 4:a and b).

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUER LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

Beginning of Vandalism. During my visits in 1980 to
Josslyn Island, I saw signs of trouble. Vandals recently had
dug into the steep side of the deep valley between the two
highest mounds. The Randells were aware of this digging and
were concerned about it. They already had sent their ranch
and grove foreman, Frank Dutil, along with his stepson, Jody
Grimes, and others, to Josslyn Island to shovel disturbed shells
back into the damaged area.
In June 1980, I also saw a very fresh hole in the flat,
elevated area just northwest of the deep valley. There, on spoil,
I found a notched quahog left valve, which I used in a study of
shell tools (Luer 1986a:134, Table l:specimen #3).
During the next two years, Don Randell learned that
digging on Josslyn Island was being done by thieves, who
were hauling away bags of midden shells to sell. Randell's
health did not permit him to visit the site, so he sent Dutil and
Grimes to check the island, and he let it be known locally that
he was doing so. These tactics discouraged digging, forcing the
looters to move southward to another shell midden on nearby
Mason Island (8LL65, then federal property). In March 1983,
Randell wrote to me that:
We think we have located where the shell collectors
moved to when we scared them off Josslyn. I think
that the thieves on Mason Island were working on
State owned [sic] property. I would be delighted to
catch them in the act elsewhere .... They should be
put in jail. [Randell 1983b]
The Randells, however, were frustrated. Don Randell
complained that "we have had no luck in getting the Sheriff
or anybody else to do anything actively to protect it [Josslyn
Island]" (Randell 1983a).
1983 Mapping. In late February 1983, Randell traveled to
the Florida State Museum (FSM) (now the Florida Museum of
Natural History [FLMNH]), where he spoke of the looting and
his desire to sell Josslyn Island to the State of Florida for long-
term preservation. He wrote to me that he was following my
recommendation to have a measured map of the site made, but
"with a view to encourage the State's interest in it" (Randell
1983a).
In early April 1983, Randell and I traveled together to
Tallahassee to attend the 35th Annual Meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society (FAS). While in Tallahassee, Randell
met state officials to discuss possible state acquisition of
Josslyn Island. All agreed that making a map of the site was a
good step toward that goal.
By June 1983, Randell made a donation to FSM to pay
the museum to make a contour map of the Josslyn Island
site in formal cooperation with members of the area's two
anthropological groups, FAS and its regional chapter, the
Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS). Randell
asked me to go to Josslyn Island to represent FAS as the state's
overarching anthropological organization. FAS and SWFAS
members contributed some of the labor needed to cut sight
lines.'
During mapping in July, 1983, eight recently disturbed
areas were plotted and identified by number. They are shown on
the resulting contour map of the Josslyn Island site (Marquardt
1984:Figure 9). One near the landing was labeled Disturbed

Area #1, and one farther eastward was labeled Disturbed Area
#2. Those around the deep valley were labeled Disturbed
Areas #3, #4, #5, and #6, and two pits in the elevated area
north of the valley were labeled Disturbed Areas #7 and #8.
The mapping report noted that:
According to Col. Randell, Disturbed Area #6
apparently is the result of an (unauthorized)
excavation by persons who sought to collect
large Busycon shells ... for sale to shell dealers.
[Marquardt 1984:11, Figure 8]
After Mapping. After the mapping on Josslyn Island,
looters stayed away for a few years. Several of their pits were
used for archaeological investigations. In 1985, the Randells
funded work by FSM to recover samples from Disturbed
Areas #6 and #8 (Operations A-1 and B). In 1987, FSM
archaeologists returned to excavate a 2 x 3 m test (Operation
A-2) next to Disturbed Area #8 (Marquardt 1992a:14-25).
Meanwhile, however, looting continued on nearby Mason
Island, which was transferred from federal to state ownership
in 1987. By early 1988, state land manager Repenning had
received complaints from Pine Island residents "that a boat
was bringing in onion sacks full of shells from somewhere
near the vicinity of the [Mason] island" (Dodrill 1988).
In response, Repenning and other state personnel visited
Mason Island on February 4, 1988. They found evidence
of fresh digging, including "a half dozen new and unused
onion bags" (Dodrill 1988). Florida Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Law Enforcement Ranger Craig Blocker,
who was based in Repenning's office, posted the site and
began watching it.
In May 1988, Repenning asked Blocker to take me on a
follow-up visit to Mason Island, which we reached by airboat.
The visit resulted in explicit, written recommendations for
salvage work, and I quickly sketched a rough contour map of
the Mason Island shell midden. The map showed the severe
damage caused by extensive looting (Luer and Archibald
1988:8LL65).
Despite posting Mason Island, Blocker (1988) discovered
renewed digging there by shell hunters on August 24, 1988. He
photographed their buckets and bags, which they had tucked
into the side of a looter pit. And, he noted the newly damaged
area on my sketch map of the Mason Island shell midden (in
the southwestern corer of the most southern looter pit).

State-Owned Period (1989-present)

The Randells' determination to preserve Josslyn Island led
them to sell it to the State of Florida. It was acquired through
the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program,
after more than a decade of negotiation. Don Randell had
hoped to sell Josslyn Island to the State for its commercial
value (approximately $1 million, according to his appraiser),
and then he pledged to donate half of that to archaeological
research in the area. However, the State could offer only
$147,000 for the island (Averill 1984a, 1984b). After a standoff
of several years, during which the property's ranking dropped
from 21 to near 50 on the CARL acquisition list, the Randells
sold the island for the State's lower price in 1989.

LUER

LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

TIff FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Right away, Ranger Blocker of DNR posted Josslyn
Island and began patrolling it, making regular visits by boat
to inspect it. He visited the island at least six times in 1989,
beginning on May 5. He found evidence of illegal digging,
issued warnings to two treasure hunters, and placed barbed
wire across the landing (Blocker 1991).
Blocker continued his patrols throughout 1990, visiting
Josslyn Island 25 times. On March 7, 1990, he discovered fresh
digging by shell hunters, near the landing. They had extended
the eastern and southeastern sides of an existing looter pit
(Disturbed Area #1 on the 1983 map [Marquardt 1984:Figure
9]), and they had dug a second smaller pit only 1 to 3 m to
the south. On May 15, 1990, Blocker backfilled the larger pit
(Disturbed Area #1, which he called "Vandal Pit C").
On July 27, 1990, Blocker (1991) backfilled two more
pits on Josslyn Island (which he called "Vandal Pits A and B").
They were near the bottom of the deep valley (between Shell
Elevations 4 and 5). One (which he called "Vandal Pit B")
was labeled Disturbed Area #5 on the 1983 map (Marquardt
1984:Figure 9), and the other (called "Vandal Pit C") was
approximately 2 to 4 m west of his Vandal Pit B (Disturbed
Area #5).
On November 18, 1990, Blocker discovered much new
digging by shell hunters near the landing in the same area as
backfilled Vandal Pit C (Disturbed Area #1). Scattered around
the looted area were buckets, bags, a wooden sorting table, a
shovel, and a large amount of trash. On November 29, Blocker
took a reporter to Josslyn Island to publicize the damage and
to make a plea for tips to apprehend the criminals. Several tips
were received (Blocker 1991; Henry 1990; Hoeckel 1990).
In 1991, Blocker took two archaeologists working for the
CARL Archaeological Survey Program to Josslyn Island, and
they included it in a video they made showing vandalism on
state lands (Weisman and Newman 1991). In 1992, results of
archaeological work on the island in 1985 and 1987 (supported
in part by donations from the Randells) were published in a
series of studies (e.g., Marquardt 1992a:14-25). In 1996, to
help bolster Josslyn Island's significance, it was relisted in
the National Register of Historic Places (Walker and Mattick
1996).
Nonetheless, shell thieves remained in the area, and they
returned to Josslyn Island as the 1990s progressed. Earlier,
during site mapping in July 1983, a single looter pit (Disturbed
Area #2) was plotted in the northeastern slope of one of the
island's major shell elevations, approximately 70 m east of the
landing (Marquardt 1984:Figure 9). While canoeing in Pine
Island Sound in the 1980s, Charles Blanchard observed this
hole. He saw it again, ca. 1992 and in 1997, after it had been
enlarged. In 1997, he found it surrounded by shovels, pails,
screens, and other equipment, and he reported the looting to
Repenning. In response, Repenning put ceramic roofing tiles
in the looter pit (to mark disturbed material), before filling it
partially. He also reported the site and kept barbed wire across
the landing (Blanchard 1999, personal communication 2002).
In early 1999, Blanchard, then working for Repenning's
DEP office, visited Josslyn Island as part of his official duty
to patrol state-owned sites. He observed renewed vandalism in
two places: in Disturbed Area #6 (just east of the deep valley

near the southern end of the site) and in Disturbed Area #2
(east of the landing). Looters had enlarged Disturbed Area
#6 (the scene of Operation B in 1985), where their digging
seemed "to have been interrupted by the fall of a massive
gumbo limbo trunk section, very recent, which has covered
most of the mining area" (Blanchard 1999). At Disturbed Area
#2, also enlarged by looters, "there were trowels and hand
gloves and a screen" (Blanchard 1999).
Both places were located far enough into the site, and high
enough, that looters could hear approaching motor boats and
have enough time to take evasive measures. Disturbed Area #2
was even more strategically placed. It was hidden from view,
situated off the footpath and on the backside of a shell ridge.
It was close enough to the landing that digging equipment and
water jugs did not have to be carried far as looters entered the
site, and heavy sacks of looted shells did not have to be carried
far on the way out.
In response to this looting, and at the request ofRepenning,
archaeologists Corbett Torrence and Robert Patton went to
Josslyn Island in March 1999. There, Patton made a generalized
profile sketch of a portion of the vandal pit (enlarged Disturbed
Area #2) located east of the landing, which he called "Looter
Pit B" (Patton 2000:102-104, 186). A local television station
covered this visit.
Alarmed by this serious damage and the threat of more
illegal digging, law enforcement was placed on alert. In early
2000, Blanchard of DEP showed law officers around Josslyn
Island, familiarizing them with looted areas and the problem
confronting them. He also showed the officers recent looting
on Hooker Key (8LL30), a shell midden farther south in Pine
Island Sound. Officers Toby Fogel and Gary Wills of the DEP
Florida Park Police took special interest in the case.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2000, Wills, Repenning, and Andy
Goodwyne of DEP responded to a telephone call and went by
airboat to Josslyn Island, where they discovered three men
illegally digging. Fogel then joined them, aiding in the arrest.
The charges were trespassing and unlawful excavation in a
state-owned archaeological site. Repenning, Goodwyne, and
the police found digging equipment and burlap sacks filled
with midden shells (Figure 5).
On Thursday, August 10, 2000, Repenning and Torrence
visited Josslyn Island and inspected the damage. On Friday,
August 11, 2000, another site inspection was conducted
by CARL archaeologist Melissa Memory, accompanied by
Repenning and Torrence. Memory wrote a report documenting
five areas freshly disturbed by looters. The largest, called
"Area B," was the same looter pit profiled by Patton in 1999.
Memory took a photograph showing a plastic tarp, a tin bowl,
a plastic water jug, and an apparent plastic bag in the pit. She
estimated the volume of freshly damaged shell midden deposit,
suggesting some costs of study and repair (Memory 2000).
In February 2001, six months after the looters were
caught, the largest fresh looter pit was profiled and sampled
by archaeologists Torrence and Luer. This was the same pit as
Memory's Area B, and it was the same, although enlarged, as
Patton's Looter Pit B and as Disturbed Area #2 on the 1983
site map. The results of the 2001 work are the focus of the rest
of this report (see below).

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

LUER LOoTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

Figure 5. Andy Goodwyne of DEP stands in Looter Pit B,
soon after arrests in 2000. He holds one of the looter's bur-
lap sacks filled with shells. View to the northwest. Photo-
graph by Robert Repenning, courtesy of Charlotte Harbor
Preserve State Park.

In March and April, 2001, DEP personnel working
with AmeriCorps volunteers, filled much of the enlarged
looter pit (Lollar 2001). Meanwhile, an investigation of the
looting case was being conducted by DEP's Division of Law
Enforcement.
In September 2001, a court convicted two men involved
in the looting. According to DEP, one was Floyd Lee Johnson,
a commercial fisherman from Fort Myers, who had been
supplying the other man, Charles Richard Jury, Jr., of Ingles,
Florida, with looted midden shells to be sold for profit. Jury
was the owner of Sea Forest, a wholesale and retail shop
located on U.S. Highway 19 near Crystal River, Florida.
Shells reportedly were sent to India for sale to Hindus, who
view them as religious objects. Jury was convicted of one
count of misdemeanor theft, one felony count of dealing in
stolen property, and one felony count of criminal conspiracy.
In November 2001, Jury was sentenced to six months in jail
and ordered to pay $24,134 in fines and for investigative and
court costs (DEP 2001; Hoyem 2001; Reese 2002).

Background to Present Project

In January 2001, Blanchard contacted Torrence and me,
explaining the need for immediate profiling in Looter Pit B on
Josslyn Island. He said that Repenning wanted to have the pit
filled in the next few weeks by AmeriCorps volunteers, and
that DEP had funds for four radiocarbon dates. I consulted
Chris Newman, of CARL, and Ryan Wheeler, of BAR,
and submitted a research design, obtaining a state permit to
proceed.
Blanchard, Torrence, and I, accompanied by Greg
LeBlanc, reached Josslyn Island by canoe and sea kayaks on
Sunday morning, February 11. Torrence and I spent the day
inspecting Looter Pit B, taking notes, and preparing the pit for
profile mapping. Then, we paddled back to Pineland and made
plans to return to Josslyn Island the next weekend.
On Saturday, February 17, with high water in the evening,
Brian Holloway used his motor boat to drop Torrence and me

Figure 6. Measured plan view of Looter Pit B. The points
that delimit the pit are numbered flags placed around its
perimeter on February 18, 2001 (see Appendix 1). Note flag
points #5 and #6, where our profile was located. CHMS II
refers to a metal marker (see text). The line between points
#1 and #3 runs north-south. The line between points #3
and #4 runs east-west. Much spoil was outside the pit's
gaping entrance, where looters had shoveled it down the
slope to the east.

on Josslyn Island. Bringing two sea kayaks for the return trip,
we camped near the landing. Torrence and I began profiling and
sampling early Sunday morning, continuing all day. Blanchard
reached the island by canoe on Sunday's rising tide. At sunset,
the three of us left the island and struggled in the dark against
waves and a strong, cold headwind to make a long paddle back
to Pineland.

Archaeological Work in 2001

MeasuredPlan View

Figure 6 shows the perimeter of Josslyn Island's Looter Pit
B as we measured it on February 18, 2001. This plan view is
based on tape measurements and compass bearings (Appendix
1). We inserted flags along the pit's edges and in its corners,
and used them as points to measure between. In many areas,
the edge was undercut, and we inserted flags slightly behind
the overhanging edge, above the vertical face of the pit. Then,
we labeled the flags #1 through #13. We placed three flags
(points #1, #3, and #4) so that they formed a right angle across
most of the looter pit, and this helped us to situate the pit and
other points with respect to the compass.

LUER

LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Location ofLooter Pit B

Looter Pit B was approximately 70 m east of the landing.
It was in the northeastern end of a high shell ridge, which has
its major axis running southwest-northeast. It is the second
large ridge from the northwestern edge of the island (labeled
"2" in Figure 4). Here, I refer to it as "Shell Elevation 2."
In Figure 4, an "x" marks the location of Looter Pit B in the
northeastern end of Shell Elevation 2.
In 1980 and 2001, the footpath from the landing ascended
the steep, western slope of Shell Elevation 2. It was the first
steep ascent that the path made as it wound southeastward,
crossing over shell ridges and dividing valleys. As noted above,
these ridges and valleys correspond to the mound-capped
elevations and channels described by Cushing (1897:9).
Shell Elevation 2 supports dense shell midden vegetation,
especially stopper and gumbo limbo trees. It drops sharply
around its northern end, from 3 to 3.5 m (10 to 12 ft) in elevation
all the way to mangrove mud near its base. The northern slope
of the shell ridge is the location of grid coordinate 0 North, 50
East on the 1983 map (Marquardt 1984:Figure 9). That point is
between the map's 1.5 m and 2.0 m contour lines.
The 1983 map's east-west baseline (0 North line) crosses
the northern slope of Shell Elevation 2. In 1983, this baseline
was the initial sight line that began at the landing and was
cleared eastward all the way across the site. Additional sight
lines, running perpendicular to the 0 North line, were then
cleared to the north and south. Later, in 1986, a geologist and
students from the University of South Florida took a core (J-3)
in the mangroves immediately northwest of Shell Elevation 2
(Upchurch et al. 1992:64, 84, Figures 7 and 8).
In February 2001, due to lack of time and sufficient
information, we did not relocate grid point 0 North, 50 East,
and thus we did not tie the looter pit to it. In August 2007,
John Aspiolea and William Stanton, of DEP, and I attempted to
relocate this point. First, I enlarged a portion of the 1983 map
and reduced our 2001 plan view of Looter Pit B to make both
the same scale. Then, I overlaid the pit on the map, guided by
the general location of Disturbed Area #2 and the crest of Shell
Elevation 2 (between points #5 and #6).
Then, we moved northwestward (at an angle of 330
degrees east of magnetic north) from the western end of Looter
Pit B to search for the grid point. Using a metal detector, we
found a loose, crosier-headed metal pin (lying on the ground,
under leaves) in the area where the grid point should have been
(-320-325 degrees east of magnetic north and -7 m from point
#6). This metal pin was 1 m due east of the southern edge of
a large gumbo limbo tree trunk. However, the pin was out of
place and its identity was uncertain. Our effort to tie Looter
Pit B to the 1983 map and site grid was unsuccessful. In the
future, an attempt to reestablish the 1983 site grid, and to mark
it with monuments, should be considered.

Growth ofLooter Pit B

The oldest portion of the looter pit corresponds to Disturbed
Area #2 on the 1983 map. According to that map, Disturbed
Area #2 was oval in shape, measured 3.0 x 3.5 m, and was
centered at grid coordinates 8 South, 60.5 East (Marquardt

1984:Figure 9). That location was a short distance (8 m) south
of the 0 North line (the initial, east-west sight line).
It is clear that the looter pit grew through time, expanding
into the northeastern end of Shell Elevation 2. Apparently, the
looters picked away at the shell deposit along vertical sections.
Most of the pit thereby grew laterally into the deposit, skirting
some small trees that were left standing on a narrow tongue
of ground. The looters shoveled much of the excavated spoil
behind them, so that it fell downhill onto the slope of the shell
ridge. As the looters reached farther into the deposit, they
shoveled some spoil into previously dug areas.
The pit's stages of expansion can be estimated, based on
observations through the years by Blanchard and Torrence
(personal communication 2001). By referring to Figure 6, that
information can be summarized in plan view as follows:
1. In the mid- and late-1980s, a pit (Disturbed Area #2 on the
1983 map) existed between our flag points #1 and #12;
2. Ca. 1992, digging took place close to the base of the
shell ridge (north of Looter Pit B and beyond the limits
of Figure 6) as well as at midslope on the end of the shell
ridge, extending along our points #1, #12, #13, and #3;
3. By 1997, the pit was extended back to a line between point
#2 and the corer between points #12 and #11, perhaps
with some tunneling toward points #7 and #8;
4. By early 1999, a large area had been dug toward the
northwest. It ended along a line drawn from midway
between our points #5 and #6 and then northward to
point #9. This was where Patton sketched his western and
northern profile, the northern portion apparently located
along the line between points #9 and #10;
5. By February 2001, we found the pit extended farther to
points #6 and #4 (apparently a result of looting in 2000)
and included undercut areas, possibly attributable to the
recent looting. This was the condition of the pit after the
arrests, as observed by Repenning, Torrence, and Memory
in August 2000.
Thus, it is clear that, by March 1999, the pit had became
large and irregularly shaped. In 1999, Patton called it "Looter
Pit B" when he drew his profile of the pit's western and northern
sides (Patton 2000:102-104, 186, 2001:298-299, Figure 83). It
should be noted that the pit is not located accurately on Patton's
site map, being placed too far to the southeast in a different
part of the site (Patton 2000:Figure 36, 2001:Figure 37).
As we worked in the pit, we relocated a metal rebar
marker that Patton had inserted in the ground surface near the
upper edge of the pit, with a metal tag wired to it that was
labeled "CHMS II 3/99 Looter Pit B Datum." This refers to the
Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey II, which Patton then was
conducting. It was a project funded by a Survey and Planning
Grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources to
FLMNH.
The position of Patton's profile is based on an estimate
by Torrence, who saw it. According to Torrence (personal
communication 2001), the profile in 1999 had been several
feet from the CHMS II marker. Patton (2000:102, 2001:296)
recorded the location of the metal marker, using a Differential
Geographic Positioning System, as Easting 0385140, Northing
2945086. We found the marker still embedded in the undercut
edge of the enlarged pit. Thus, by August 2000, the looters had

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

50 cm
I I
Pt. Pt
#5 #Zonel

Zone 5 Zone 4
A #2

slump \ ^

Figure 7. Measured profile between flag points #5 and #6 in Looter Pit B. The profile is 2.50 m in horizontal width, 1.20 m
in maximum vertical height, and oriented 305 degrees east of magnetic north. Triangles mark radiocarbon sample prove-
niences. The numbered strata, called zones, are described in Luer (2002a:Appendix IV). One thin stratum within Zone 2
(under point #6) was not labeled. A small area at the profile's lower left corner fell away. The base of the profile stopped
before extending deeply into undisturbed deposit.

extended the pit farther into the ridge. This was the location
of the pit's northwestern edge when we started fieldwork on
February 11, 2001.

Looter Pit Profile

As we began to prepare Looter Pit B for profiling, we
collected some artifacts. We also found the CHMS II marker,
described above, and used a plumb bob to drop it straight
downward, from the undercut edge, onto the floor of the
looter pit. There, we used it as a datum point for taking some
measurements as we cleaned the base of the profile. Initially,
we inspected two prospective profiles, Profile #1 (between flag
points #6 and #9) and Profile #2 (between points #5 and #6)
(Figure 6). We chose to map and to sample Profile #2.
Thus, our profile records stratification between flag points
#5 and #6 (Figure 7). First, we removed disturbed spoil from the
base of the profile, stopping after entering undisturbed deposit.
We encountered an apparently undisturbed feature, Feature 1,
which we measured in situ and then removed. It consisted of
two large shells and shell fragments in a lens of black dirt. One
shell was a large, broken, left-handed whelk shell tool, which
was resting against a large horse conch shell.
As we troweled into the edge of undisturbed deposit
(in order to obtain a clean profile), we encountered a few
additional artifacts, which we bagged. We also collected an
exposed sherd from the profile and used shovels to cut off

the overhanging edge, catching it in a screen and collecting a
sample. Field Specimen (FS) numbers and identifications of
all these items are in my original report (Luer 2002a).
Then, we measured and mapped the profile, recording
descriptions of strata (which we called "zones") (see Luer
2002a:Appendix IV). We distinguished 12 different zones
(Figure 7). All contained mollusc food shells. Some contained
sand, and others were free of sand. Mollusc shells consisted
predominantly of small left-handed whelk (Busycon sinistrum)
shells (most of which were largely intact) mixed with relatively
fewer pear whelk (Busycon spiratum pyruloides), king's
crown (Melongena corona), and lesser amounts of other shells
common in the area.
In some zones, abundant fragments of deteriorated pen
shells (cf. Atrina sp.) were present, as were abundant crystals
of calcium carbonate. We also observed fragments of sea
urchin (Lytechinus variegatus) tests and crab claws, a fragment
of a stingray spine, numerous bony fish vertebrae, sea catfish
(Ariidae) and drum family (Sciaenidae) otoliths, a pharyngeal
grinder of a red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), and a mouth plate
of a burrfish (Diodontidae). Finally, we collected artifacts
from the profile and removed samples from recorded contexts
for radiocarbon dating.
Patton (2000:186, 2001:Figure 83) was not as detailed in
describing and drawing his profile. He distinguished only four
strata. They are mostly straighter (more level or horizontal)
than in our profile. This may be because the orientations of his

A#3

LUER

LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 Vot. 61(1-2)

Figure 8. George Luer (left) carefully bags a radiocarbon
sample as Corbett Torrence (right) records its provenience
in his measured field sketch of our profile in Looter Pit
B, February 18, 2001. Photograph by Charles Blanchard,
courtesy of Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park.

profiles were more perpendicular to the slope of the mound,
whereas our profile was more parallel with the slope. It appears
that our Zone 1 may correspond to Patton's Stratum I, while
our Zones 2 through 4 may correspond to his Stratum II, and
our Zones 5 through 7 may correspond to his Stratum III. It is

possible that our Zones 8 through 11 may correspond to his
Stratum IV.

Radiocarbon Dates

After we mapped the profile, Torrence and I collected
four samples for radiocarbon dating (Figure 8). We took them
from the bottom up, so that debris did not fall on unsampled
portions of the profile. We collected them from Zones 10,
9, 4, and 2. In the field, we labeled samples sequentially as
radiocarbon samples #1 through #4. The profile map (Figure
7) shows locations where samples were collected. The samples
are described in Luer (2002a:Appendix II). One consisted of
fragments of charred wood, and the others were small- to
moderate-size left-handed whelk shells. We chose the same
kind of shell in order to minimize effects of fractionation.
Results are in Table 1. The C13/C12 values are within normal
ranges for the materials analyzed. The similar C'3/C12 values
for the shell samples indicate that we succeeded in obtaining
shell samples with very similar fractionation values.
All the measured dates overlap at 2 sigma, suggesting
that all the dates are statistically the same age and that they
are reliable ones. It also supports the interpretation, based
on physical evidence (see below), that the entire profile is
the same general age and that it was deposited rapidly. The

Table 1. Radiocarbon data from Looter Pit B, Josslyn Island (8LL32). These dates are based on
three marine shell samples and one carbonized wood sample. They are listed by provenience,
from shallow to deep, with Zone 2 being high in the profile and Zone 10 being toward the bot-
tom (see Figure 7). The measured dates are in radiocarbon years before present (present =
A.D. 1950), with 1 sigma age ranges. Conventional dates, with 1 sigma ranges, were derived
using values of C13/C12 that were measured for each sample (0 o/oo is typical of marine shell,
-25 o/oo is typical of carbonized wood). The shell samples consisted of small left-handed whelk
shells. Conventional dates were then adjusted for local reservoir effect. Finally, each adjusted
date was used to obtain a calibrated age range. The conventional, adjusted, and calibrated data
were provided by Beta Analytic, Inc., with calibrated dates based on the Intcal98 Radiocarbon
Age Calibration.

In the profile (Figure 7), all 12 strata (zones) represent
typical shell refuse accumulation (again, they are described in
detail in Luer 2002b:Appendix IV). The Indians deposited the
zones fairly rapidly, judging by the fact that many shells were
unbleached by sunlight. This suggests that the shells were
buried quickly, and had not been exposed for an extended length
of time. Many of them, such as small left-handed whelk shells,
even retained much of their original, natural coloration.
Many left-handed whelk and other shells were unbroken.
Their long axes often were oriented generally parallel with the
sloping orientation of the layer in which they occurred. They
were not extensively jumbled in orientation. This suggests that
the shells accumulated incrementally on sloping surfaces.
The identity of the zones as refuse strata (produced by
the discard of food refuse, such as mollusc shells and food
bones) is supported also by the artifacts that we recovered
(see below). Thus, based on their composition and condition,
I view the zones in the profile as representing rapid discard
of primary and secondary refuse. I do not interpret them as
redeposited materials (tertiary refuse) (see Luer 2007:31-42,
153-160 for discussions of kinds of refuse and depositional
patterns in Florida Gulf coast shell middens). In other words,
the zones in our profile of Looter Pit B show that this portion
of the shell ridge grew through rapid accumulation of midden
debris rather than by construction events using redeposited
materials.
Another line of evidence supporting rapid deposition is
the scarcity of small, terrestrial snail shells (Polygyra sp.) in
the midden strata, except Zone 1 where they were abundant.
Zone 1 includes, and is immediately below, the humus layer
of the present ground surface. The abundant terrestrial snail
shells in it appear to have accumulated naturally there, after the
midden ceased being deposited and after vegetation became
established on the surface of the shell ridge.
In our profile (Figure 7), the strata tend to slope downward
to the right (to the northwest). They generally parallel the
existing surface of the shell ridge. This suggests that a similar
sloped surface existed during the deposition of the strata,
although it was being buried as shells and other debris were
being discarded on it. Thus, the general form of the shell ridge
apparently existed when the Indians were depositing these
refuse strata. The crest of the shell ridge would have been at
the left side of the profile, with the western slope of the shell
ridge having been at the right. The fact that some lower zones
are wedge-shaped, being narrow and "pinching out" toward
the left, suggests that debris was being discarded from the left
to the right. It also suggests that a habitation area was located
beyond the profile, to the left.
None of the zones in our profile is an intensive habitation
stratum. All appear to be trash layers, with the possible
exception of Zone 7, which contained Feature 1. The origin and
nature of Feature 1 are unclear. Feature 1's several large shell

fragments appear to have been placed together intentionally.
Some of the fragments might have been burned in situ, or they
might have been burned before being deposited in the feature.
The large, fragmentary whelk shell tool appears to have been
broken before it was deposited, since missing parts were not
found. It may be that these shell fragments were intended for
future utilization, but it seems more likely that they simply
represent discarded items. A couple of Polygyra shells were
observed in the black sand of Feature 1, the only such shells
observed outside Zone 1. Perhaps they originated elsewhere
and were included in the feature's black sand, which might
have been dumped on the surface of the midden.
Zone 1 contains more sand than any other stratum. Much
of the sand might have been deposited intentionally by the
Indians, judging from the presence of small ecofacts in it.
The ecofacts are small mollusc shells (e.g., Atlantic modulus
[Modulus modulus], cerith [Cerithium sp.], and other tiny
univalve and bivalve shells) that are common in the sandy
mud of tidal flats surrounding the site. The Indians might have
dumped the sand on the surface of the midden for sanitation
purposes. The same practice has been suggested for other shell
midden deposits in the region (e.g., Luer 2007:158, 267-268;
Luer et al. 2001:18).

Shell Size and Condition

The unbroken condition of many small left-handed whelk
shells is noted in the section above. We assume that the meat
from these mollusc shells was used as food by the Indians. The
Indians appear to have extracted it in a manner that often did
not break the shells, perhaps by boiling. Once the meat was
extracted, the Indians apparently discarded the shells onto the
midden.
In Looter Pit B, we were impressed by the vast numbers
of small left-handed whelk shells (Figure 9). From the profile,
I collected a hand-full (a "grab sample") of these shells from
Zone 1 and measured them (Table 2). While cleaning the
profile, we speculated about how the Indians obtained so many
small whelks. I noted that, each March, long chains of egg
cases produced by large, adult whelks can be found commonly
in the surrounding estuaries, and that abundant tiny whelks
are clearly visible in the egg cases. In nature, relatively few
of these escape predators and grow to edible size. However,
if the Indians collected egg cases and placed them with food
in aquatic containers of some sort (e.g., baskets, tidal pens or
impoundments), the Indians might have been able to rear large
quantities of small whelks for use as food. This speculation may
be met with skepticism, but it is suggested as an hypothesis so
that methods may be devised to test it.
I also suggest that the Indians could have caught
carnivorous marine univalves in baited traps (Luer 2007:202).
Such univalves include left-handed and pear whelks, banded
and brown tulips, king's crowns, moon snails, and horse conchs.
Today, it is common to find some of these edible gastropods
in baited crab traps. It would have been easy for the Indians to
make and set baited traps for such carnivorous marine snails in
order to increase their edible shellfish harvest.8

Looter Pit B yielded a variety of artifacts. In 1999,
Torrence recalls finding a whelk shell cutting-edged tool near
the base of Patton's profile. Patton (2000:104, 129) lists shell
tools and ceramic sherds "from within 5 m of Looter Pit B"
(his FS66) as consisting of nine Belle Glade Plain and three
sand-tempered plain sherds, one Type A cutting-edged tool (of
whelk shell, found by Torrence), and two pieces of whelk shell
debitage. The artifacts we found are listed in Luer (2002a:
Table 5 and Appendices II and III) and are discussed briefly
here. In Tallahassee, items recovered by Patton are curated as
BAR accession number 00.116, and materials collected during
this project are curated as BAR accession number 02.076.
Ceramics. We recovered 26 sherds. Belle Glade Plain
sherds were the most common (n = 10). Belle Glade Plain
pottery is common in the area from ca. A.D. 650-1350 (Cordell
1992:146-147, 165). Next in frequency (n = 7) were sherds
of smooth plain pottery, an informal category for sherds that
are smooth-surfaced, somewhat chalky, and contain a small
amount of grit or sand. Sand-tempered plain sherds (n = 4)
contained abundant sand. Three St. Johns Check Stamped
sherds included one thick bottom fragment and another with
possible soot or residue on its exterior surface. Two sherds were
classified as Pinellas Plain, one with laminated and contorted
paste. A few sherds of uncertain identity were classified as
"smooth plain." The sherd sample is small, but it is consistent
with radiocarbon dates obtained from the profile.
Stone. We found a fragment of a possible utilized, blade-
like flake of very poor-grade stone. It is weathered and in
poor condition. Possible step fractures suggest that it might
have been used for scraping. Torrence states that lithic flakes
are typical of shell midden sites in southwestern Florida, but
that they often are overlooked due to their small size and
dark color, and due to the voluminous presence of shell. By

Table 2. Width measurements of left-handed
whelk shells (n = 16). They are from Zone 1 in
the profile of Looter Pit B (see text and Luer
2002a:Appendices H and III). This sample
of shells was collected by hand from the 1/4-
inch screen. They were similar to numerous
left-handed whelk shells in the Zone 1 midden
deposit. All are small or very small, and mea-
surements were taken to record their sizes.
The "osteological box" method was used to
measure the maximum width of each shell by
placing the shell between solid, parallel, ver-
tical panels and then measuring the distance
between the panels. For each measurement,
a shell was placed aperture upward and with
the siphonal canal oriented parallel to the
panels on each side of the shell. The shells
were intact, or almost intact, and in excellent
condition, showing little or no damage during
their growth.

Shell Width
Specimen Measurement
Number (mm)

1. 48

2. 41

3. 40

4. 38

5. 38

6. 38

7. 35

8. 35

9. 35

10. 29

11. 29

12. 28

13. 27

14. 26

15. 25

16. 25

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

LUER LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

employing careful recovery methods, he has found lithic
flakes, though infrequently, at every shell midden site where
he has conducted excavations in southwestern Florida (Corbett
Torrence, personal communication 2001). Another object of
stone was a flat piece of local, sandy limestone that might have
been used for grinding.
Shell. We collected six perforated shells that might have
functioned as sinkers on fishnets. They included five perforated
ponderous ark valves, which are common artifacts at coastal
shell middens in west-central and southwestern Florida. The
sixth shell consisted of a perforated cut-rib ark (Anadara
floridana) valve. The Indians tied such perforated ark valves
in bunches along the bottoms of their fishnets (Gilliland
1975:184, Plate 141).
We also found a perforated giant cockle (Dinocardium
robustum vanhyningi) valve. Cushing recovered more than
100 perforated giant cockle valves at Key Marco. Gilliland
classified them as "net weights," and she noted that "the
central perforations are smoothly rounded and quite uniform
in size" and that the hole is "placed in the same position in
all shells" (Gilliland 1975:187, Plate 118). Despite Gilliland's
classification, it is open to question how the Indians used
perforated giant cockle valves. The Key Marco specimens
are identical to the one we recovered in February 2001 from
Josslyn Island's Looter Pit B. Marquardt (1992a:Table 4) lists
six perforated giant cockle valves from Operation A-2 on
Josslyn Island.
We also collected several large left-handed whelk shells.
We found them where the looters had placed them on the
ground around the edge of the pit, and also where the shells
had tumbled downhill. Some were unmodified, and others had
a sizeable perforation in the ultimate body whorl adjacent to
the aperture and inner lip. In some cases, the hole was neat
and round. Similarly modified, large whelk shells have been
classified as "vessels" (Type 2A) at the Aqui Esta Mound (Luer
2002b:Figure 42) and elsewhere (Luer and Hughes 2005). In
August 2007, I observed additional Type 2A vessels in spoil
at Looter Pit B, as well as similarly perforated large horse
conch shells that also might have served as shell vessels. Such
perforated large gastropod shells also have been interpreted as
parts of possible composite anchors (e.g., Reiger 1981:7-10).
In 2001, we recovered a number of shell hammering
tools from Looter Pit B. They included a left-handed whelk
shell columella hammer, a horse conch shell pounder, and
fragments of two quahog left valve anvil/hammers. A masher
or "grinder/pulverizer" fashioned from a large left-handed
whelk shell also was found. It is similar to a specimen from
Brown's Mound at Pineland pictured by Marquardt (1992b:
Figure 15, right), except that its modified surfaces are rough
instead of smooth and polished. However, the specimen from
Looter Pit B is identical to reduced left-handed whelk shells
that I called "mashers," which were common at the middle
Manasota Period (ca. A.D. 150) Palmetto Lane Midden in
Sarasota (Luer 1992:249) and at Mason Island (see Luer's
shell artifact article, this issue).
We found two left-handed whelk shell tools apparently
used to hew or to cut wood. One was a fragment of a sizeable
shell cutting-edged tool, and the other was an unusually small

Type A shell cutting-edged tool. The latter tool's small cutting
or "bit" end (only 3-4 mm in width) suggests that it was used
for fine work.9

Relationship to Other Portions of the Site

Before our work at Looter Pit B, only one other area on
Josslyn Island had been radiocarbon dated. This was Operation
A at Disturbed Area #8 (Marquardt 1992a: 14-25). There, two
periods of occupation were identified, one dating to ca. 300
B.C. to A.D. 300 and the other to ca. A.D. 800 to 1300. The
second, later period of occupation appears to be generally
contemporary with the profile in Looter Pit B. Moreover, it
produced artifacts (pottery sherds, shell tools) that were similar
to those from Looter Pit B (Marquardt 1992a:18-19, Table
4), but the Looter Pit B sample was small. Both consisted of
midden deposits, although Disturbed Area #8 (Operation A)
was in a level area containing remains of intensive habitation
(e.g., ash lenses, post holes), which were lacking in our profile.
However, the abundance of whelk shells in Looter Pit B is
similar to Disturbed Area #6 (Operation B), where whelk
shells also were abundant (Marquardt 1992a: 19).
On the basis of work at Operation A in 1985 and 1987,
Marquardt (1992a:24) wrote that "there may be a deposit of
considerable extent in this southeastern portion of Josslyn
Island" dating to the early and middle Caloosahatchee IIB
Period (ca. A.D. 800 to 1050). Such a period of occupation also
may extend to areas of the northwestern portion of the site. At
the least, our profile work at Looter Pit B indicates that some
of the northwestern portion of the site dates to approximately
the same period, or slightly later. Additional work at Looter
Pit B could add support to the hypothesis that parts of Josslyn
Island may represent remains of a permanent village dating to
the Caloosahatchee IIB Period (Marquardt 1992a:24).
I should emphasize, however, that Looter Pit B discloses
the age and cultural affiliation of only a portion of Shell
Elevation 2. While all of Shell Elevation 2 may date to the same
time period, it is possible that some portions of it (especially
deep ones) may date to other periods. Indeed, the different
shell elevations on Josslyn Island remain largely unexplored
by archaeologists.
I also should mention a discrepancy between my sketch
map (Figures 3 and 4) and the 1983 map (Marquardt 1984:
Figure 9). Both compare favorably except in the area of Shell
Elevation 7. My observations on the site in August 2007
indicate that Shell Elevation 7 appears as I drew it in 1980,
and that its southern portion is missing in the 1983 map. Such
an omission is understandable given dense vegetation, scarce
field time, and limited contour data along gridded sight lines.
While we know more about Josslyn Island than 30 years ago,
we have only begun to study the site.

Conclusion

In the 1980s and 1990s, looters damaged Josslyn Island's
well-preserved shell midden deposits and features. State police
arrested looters on Josslyn Island in August 2000. In response,
archaeologists profiled a looters' pit in February, 2001, and

LUER

LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

removed samples for radiocarbon dating. Results show that
the profile dates to ca. cal A.D. 900 to 1300, or within the
Caloosahatchee IIB (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200) and Caloosahatchee
III (ca. A.D. 1200 to 1350) periods. This archaeological work
adds to our knowledge of Josslyn Island, where only one other
area had been radiocarbon dated previously.
This report also provides historical background about
Josslyn Island, and it labels some of the site's major features,
including seven major shell elevations. Considering the site's
large size and many tens of thousands of marine univalve
shells, some artificial intensification in edible gastropod
harvesting (beyond mere gathering) is suggested. I suggest
hypotheses that the Indians might have used baited traps to
catch carnivorous marine snails for food, and that they might
have reared some small ones (especially left-handed whelks)
for use as food.
As in the past, future research at Josslyn Island will occur
in spurts. Since the site is large and complex, progress will be
gradual and will involve combined efforts of many researchers.
In addition to watchful protection by law enforcement, the site
deserves a program of research. One near-term task should be
to reestablish the 1983 site grid, or to impose a new one, and to
mark it with permanent monuments to ease the way for future
work.

Notes

1. Other accounts mention "Captain Jocelyn" as a dangerous
individual (Tebeau 1968:101; Rinhart and Rinhart
1986:98).
2. By 2001, these shells had been removed. Apparently,
visitors or looters carried them away.
3. Today, this path is not visible due to defoliation, tree
falls, regrowth, and other vegetation changes caused by
Hurricane Charley in August 2004.
4. I made sketches of portions of the site, piecing them
together. I used my estimates of elevations, an aerial
photograph, a compass, and my experience sketching
contour plans of other archaeological sites, such as in
Ecuador (Luer 1977) and at the Old Oak and Roberts
Bay sites in Sarasota. I also used the technique that same
summer of 1980 at Pineland, the Howard Shell Mound,
and Calusa Island (Luer 1986b, 1989b), and later at
Indian Field, the Coral Creek Site, and many others in the
Charlotte Harbor area.
5. These shell facings on Josslyn Island were mentioned by
Milanich (1977) and Marquardt (1984:4).
6. These sherds were useful in making ceramic descriptions
in Luer and Almy (1980). In 1986, 1 donated them to FSM
(Accession Number 86-16). In March 2002, I located
them in the Collections Range at FLMNH (cabinet 7WB9,
box labeled Catalog Number A22410). They had been
combined with other surface material collected during
subsequent work at the site. Although a small sample, I
used the aboriginal sherds in my 1980 surface collection
to make a rough estimate of the relative frequency of Belle
Glade Plain sherds at Josslyn Island (5 of 50, or 10%) in a
study of the Pine Island Canal (Luer 1989a:Table 2).

7. At the time of mapping, I was working as FAS Assistant
Editor and was researching ceremonial tablets across
Florida (see Allerton, Luer, and Carr 1984). To help in the
mapping project, I enlisted another general FAS member
and coworker, David Allerton (we were not members of
SWFAS). When Allerton and I arrived on Josslyn Island in
July 1983, we found an already-cleared baseline running
eastward across the site from the landing. Allerton and
I cleared additional lines (perpendicular to the baseline)
through the site's almost impenetrable northeastern
portion. On the surface near site coordinates 0 North 100
East, we found two battered quahog clam valve fragments
pictured by Marquardt (1984:Figure 7). During a pause
in clearing, I found a stamped sherd close to the cistern.
It was identified as Crooked River Complicated Stamped
by Cordell (1992:140, Figure 11) and is now part of the
general surface collection at FLMNH (Catalog Number
A22410). It is possible that the sherd may be a stamped
fragment of Jefferson ware.
8. The Indians also might have used traps to catch some
fish, such as toadfish, jewfish, and sheepshead (see Luer
2007:218,221,226).
9. I have seen few such "miniature" whole whelk shell
cutting-edged tools, which appear to be uncommon (at
least they are seldom noticed and collected). I found one
in 2007 at the Wells Midden (8S095) in Sarasota, and I
saw one in the mid-1970s at the now-destroyed Martin
Site (8S057), a shell midden on Siesta Key. Both these
sites appear to be generally coeval with Josslyn Island.
Fine hewing tasks also are implied by small, fine-tipped
cutting edges (sharp point, delicate bevel) on some
horse conch columella chisels, such as on a full-length
specimen from the top of the Archaic Period Hill Cottage
Midden (8SO2) and on another from the Sewer Trench at
the middle Manasota Period Palmetto Lane midden (Luer
1992:249). Such tools suggest a long tradition of wood-
working that included delicate work.

Acknowledgments

Robert Repenning of DEP provided funds for radiocarbon
dates. His interest and concern led to the 2001 profiling project.
Corbett Torrence took time from his busy schedule to help
map and sample the profile, and to lend invaluable support,
energy, and enthusiasm. Corbett provided essential sea kayaks,
loaned by Greg LeBlanc of Captiva Kayak Company and
Wildside Adventures. Corbett also arranged for the boat trip
by Brian Holloway. Charles Blanchard of DEP gave his time,
knowledge, and logistical support. Ryan Wheeler and Brenda
Swann of BAR helped with the permit and other paperwork in
Tallahassee. In 2007, John Aspiolea and Bill Stanton assisted
in the field. Charles Blanchard, Chris Newman, and Ryan
Wheeler kindly read this paper and offered review comments.

Blanchard, Charles
1999 Current Appearance and Condition of the
Archaeological Cultural Resource in the Charlotte
Harbor Aquatic and State Buffer Preserve:
Reconnaissance and Survey, January-April 1999.
Report conducted for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Tallahassee.

Cordell, Ann S.
1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability
in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H.
Marquardt, pp. 105-189. Monograph 1, Institute
of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Cushing, Frank H.
1897 A Preliminary Report on the Exploration ofAncient
Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
35(153).

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
2001 Illegal Excavation of State Archaeological Site Leads
to Conviction. Dated September 28. Website of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(http://dep.state.fl.us/secretary/comm/2001/01-178.
html).

2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late
Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big
Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the
Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 33:207-225.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites
in Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Report dated
July 29. Conducted for the Florida Department of
Natural Resources. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy Technical Report Number 7. Miami.

1992a Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental
Investigations in Southwest Florida. In Culture and
Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 9-57. Monograph 1,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, University of Florida. Gainesville.

1992b Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In
Culture and Environment in the Domain of the
Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 191-
227. Monograph 1, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Patton, Robert B.
2000 The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey, Phase II:
Report of Investigations. Report dated September.
Prepared for the Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, by the Florida Museum of
Natural History. Gainesville.

2001 Spatial Structure and Process of Nonagricultural
Production: Settlement Patterns and Political
Development in Precolumbian Southwest Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUER LOOTING ON JOSSLYN ISLAND

Plowden, William
1951 University ofFloridaArchaeological Site Survey form
for Josslyn Island (L 32). Dated August 15. On file,
Florida Museum of Natural History. Gainesville.

Randell, Donald H.
1983a Letter to George Luer dated March 3. On file with
George Luer.

Scarry, John F.
1978 National Register of Historic Places Inventory
Nomination Form for Josslyn Island (8LL32).
Listed in the National Register in December. On file,
Division of Historic Resources. Tallahassee.

Tebeau, Charlton W.
1968 Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years ofHuman History
in the Everglades National Park. University of Miami
Press. Coral Gables, Florida.

Upchurch, Sam B., Pliny Jewell IV, and Eric DeHaven
1992 Stratigraphy of Indian "Mounds" in the Charlotte
Harbor Area, Florida: Sea Level Rise and
Paleoenvironments. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William
H. Marquardt, pp. 59-103. Monograph 1, Institute
of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

United States Department of Agriculture
1944 DCT-2C-71 dated February 17. Black and white
aerial photograph showing Josslyn Island. Print on
file, Map and Imagery Library, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey
ca. 1950 Undated survey card for L 30. On file, Florida
Museum of Natural History. Gainesville.

Walker, Karen J., and Barbara F. Mattick
1996 National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form for Josslyn Island Site (8LL32). Listed on the
National Register on May 21. On file, Division of
Historic Resources. Tallahassee.

Appendix 1. Data for plan view outline of Looter Pit B, Josslyn Island, February 18, 2001. The lines that were
measured are between numbered flag points around the perimeter of the pit, plus two measurements from the
CHMS II marker (on overhanging edge) to adjacent flag points. It was noted that point #10 was undercut. The
profile was between flag points #5 and #6.

Flag points measured and Distance between points Bearing (degrees east of
sighted between (m) magnetic north)

In February 2007, we conducted fieldwork on Mason
Island (8LL65) in Pine Island Sound, Lee County, southwestern
Florida (Figure 1). The work entailed profiling and radiocarbon
dating looter pits and assessing the general condition of the
site in order to update the Florida Master Site File. The site
is located in Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park (CHPSP),
which is comprised of numerous tracts surrounding portions
of Charlotte Harbor, the Peace and Caloosahatchee rivers,
Matlacha Pass, and Pine Island Sound.
Under the direction of the Bureau of Archaeological
Research (BAR), the Public Lands Archaeology (PLA)
Program is responsible for assisting in the management
of cultural resources on state lands. Toward that end, PLA
archaeologists conducted work in CHPSP to collect data from
Mason Island, which had been severely impacted by looting.
This salvage project is part of an on-going, collaborative
effort by BAR and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to manage cultural resources in CHPSP and
to address the problems of looting and erosion.

Background

Pine Island Sound lies within the Caloosahatchee Region,
an archaeological region extending along the Gulf coast from
Naples to Boca Grande Pass (Milanich 1994:xix). The first
peoples to occupy this area were hunter-gatherers. The hunter-
gatherer lifestyle persisted beyond ca. 500 B.C., when regional
cultures developed. The Caloosahatchee culture occupied the
Pine Island and Estero Bay areas, with its early historic period
manifestation referred to as the Calusa. These people relied
on marine, freshwater, and brackish water resources for their
subsistence. Shell mounds and middens, many containing
Busycon and oyster shell, and sand mounds characterize bay
and riverine sites, and inland sites also have been recorded
(Milanich 1994:311-314, 1998:126).
In recent years, archaeologists with the Conservation
and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program, now PLA,
have participated in damage assessments and salvage of
archaeological sites in CHPSP (Memory 2000; Luer et al.
2001; Luer 2002; Newman and Swann 2003; Porter and
Glowacki 2006). This article presents another recent PLA
project carried out on Mason Island.

Site Description

We selected Mason Island for archaeological profile work
because we wanted to learn the age of the site and to prepare
looter pits for backfilling. The site has suffered repeated
looting for shells. It has more vandalism per square foot than
any other site in the Pine Island Sound area, likely a result of
its close proximity and boat access via the water channel of the
Flamingo Bay and Pine Island Cove communities (Blanchard
2004). Mason Island is located in the Pine Island Center
quadrangle map (United States Geological Survey 1958) in
Township 45 South, Range 22 East, Section 16. Previous site
work was conducted by Luer and Archibald (1988), Patton
(2000, 2001), FEI Surveying (2002), and Blanchard (2004).
Mason Island is a mangrove island with a shell midden
ridge at its northwestern end (Figure 2). The site measures 115
m (380 ft) in length and 30 m (100 ft) in width near its wide
southern end, and it tapers to a narrow point at its northern
end. The highest elevations measure 1.2 m at the middle and
southern end of the midden. Vegetation on the midden includes
gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), papaya (Carica papaya),
buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), strangler fig (Ficus areaa,
indigo berry (Randia aculeata), nicker bean (Caesalpinia
crista), and invasive Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)
and carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides).
Centrally located along the ridge is twentieth-century
habitation debris, which is partially visible on the surface.
A historic aerial photograph reveals considerable use of the
island in the 1940s (Figure 3). It shows two houses or shacks,
an apparent dock and boat, and possible net spreads (United
States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1944). Subsequent
historic aerial photographs show that the two houses or shacks
persisted on the island through the 1950s (USDA 1953,
1958).

Field Methods

Following removal of exotic vegetation, two looter holes
were described, photographed, measured, and recorded, which
included global positioning (Figure 4). We selected damaged
areas for profiling (Figure 2) based on the elevation, condition,
and extent of visible stratification. For each selected hole, a

vertical wall was exposed to create a clear profile, removing
as little additional matrix as possible. Vertical and horizontal
control was utilized in drawing the profiles and to describe soil,
artifact, and faunal frequencies. Shell samples were collected
from each stratum and utilized for radiocarbon dating (Porter
and Glowacki 2007:Appendix 1). We also recovered a small
number of shell tools and ceramic artifacts during the profile
cleaning and drawing process (Porter and Glowacki 2007:
Appendix 2). These items are curated in Tallahassee (BAR
accession number 07.190).

Stratigraphic Descriptions

The two looter pits that we profiled were dug over the
course of many looting episodes on Mason Island. The
looting was reported initially in early 1983 by Don Randell
of nearby Pineland (Luer 2002:4) (also see Luer's Josslyn
Island article, this issue). Numerous looter pits on Mason
Island were recorded two decades ago in a sketch map by Luer
and Archibald (1988). Since then, more looting, infilling, and
exotic vegetation growth have occurred.

Profile I Strata

The looter area selected for profiling (Figure 5) was cleared
to document stratification. We exposed its southern wall to
yield a profile 1.5 m wide and 1.2 m deep. It was oriented
in a northwest to southeast direction at 120 degrees east of
magnetic north. The overlying surface material, or Stratum 0,
was characterized by organic duff, vegetation detritus, shell
debris (disturbed by looters), and small amounts of twentieth-
century debris, such as glass and iron fragments.
Stratum 1 extended across the profile (Figure 6) from near
the ground surface to a depth of 30 cm at the western side,
and to a depth of 50 cm at the eastern side, below the ground
surface. It was composed of 30% sandy organic sediment with
a dark brown/black color. The shell content neared 70% and
contained primarily brown tulip (Fasciolaria tulipa), banded
tulip (Fasciolaria hunteria), pear whelk (Busycon spiratum),
and small lightning whelk (Busycon sinistrum) shells, with
smaller frequencies of eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica),
king's crown (Melongena corona), moon snail (Polinices
duplicatus), quahog clam (Mercenaria campechiensis), and
pen shell (cf. Atrina sp.). The gastropod shells were well
preserved with only minimal fragmentation. Also present were

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

I

A

4> Profile I

4
S/3

Z ,- 4 o 1. DATE OF LAST FIELD WORK: MAY10, 2002
._. '- 2 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON ASSUMED TIDAL
SIGNATURE ALONG THE SHORELINE ASSUMED TO BE
U ELEVATION 1.00
S\3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON A MAGNETIC OBSERVATION
/ \ OF THE CONTROL LINE SHOWN WHICH BEARS S04'00'W
/ 4. THE IRON PIPE WAS OBSERVED WITH MAPPING GRADE GPS
3 & HAS A POSITION OF N807,5153, E616,219 BASED ON STATE
1 PLAN COORDINATES NAD 1983 (1990 ADJUSTMENT)
o 2
5. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY

S1" GA VANIZEOF LAST FIELD WORK: MAY
NATURE ALONG THE SHORELINE ASSUMEDPIPE TO BE
SELEVATILEN:V1.N

Figure 4. Northern Mason Island with overlay of midden
contour map. Base map is an enlarged portion of the USGS
(1958) topographic sheet. Overlay is a reduced version
of the FEI 2002 map. Locations of Profile I (N26.55524,
W82.12210) and Profile II (N26.55474, W82.12212) are
based on the Geographic NAD27 CONUS.

Figure 5. Plan view of the edge of the looter pit surrounding Profile I (based on Luer 2008:Appendices 1 and 2).

small numbers of land snail (Polygyra sp.). No artifacts were
observed in situ.
Stratum 2, below Stratum 1, also extended across the
profile (Figure 6) to a depth of 75 cm at the eastern side, and
to a depth of 50 cm on the western side, below the ground
surface. The base of Stratum 2 represents the bottom of the
excavation and profile, with additional cultural deposits
continuing below them. Stratum 2 was composed of 20%
sandy organic sediment with a medium to dark grey color. The
remaining matrix, 80% shell, again contained primarily tulip
and smaller amounts of whelk shells. These shells were well
preserved but less fragmentary than those in Stratum 1. Other
less frequent shells included eastern oyster, king's crown,
moon snail, quahog clam, cockle, pen shell, and land snail. No
artifacts were observed in situ.
Although we did not observe artifacts in situ, clean up
around Profile I produced two ceramic sherds and two shell tool
fragments. One sherd, although heavily weathered, appears to
be Belle Glade Plain. The other sherd is sand-tempered plain.
One extensively used Type C whelk shell hammer tool also
was collected.

Profile II Strata

The second looter area selected for profiling (Figure 7)
was cleared to document stratification. We excavated along its
southern wall to make Profile II, which measured 1.5 m wide,
1.05 m deep, and was oriented in a northeast to southwest

direction at 60 degrees east of magnetic north. Stratigraphic
content at the overlying surface of Profile II, as with Profile
I, was composed of disturbed looter spoil characterized by
organic duff, vegetation detritus, shells, and small amounts
of twentieth-century debris, such as glass and iron fragments.
Our Profile II was in the same area as Patton's profile of "a
looter's vertical cut" (Patton 2001:308, Figures 39 and 86).
Stratum 1 extended across our Profile II (Figure 8) from
the ground surface to a depth of 75 cm at the eastern side, and to
a depth of 85 cm at the western side, below the ground surface.
Interestingly, Stratum 1 (upper and lower) is almost completely
bisected across the profile by the deposition of Stratum 2 from
the eastern side. The layer is composed of 30% of sandy humic
sediment with a dark brown/black color. The additional 70%
of the matrix was composed of shell, primarily small lightning
whelk, pear whelk, brown tulip, and banded tulip, with smaller
amounts of king's crown, horse conch, eastern oyster, moon
snail, and pen shell. Structurally, the shell content in this layer
is far more fragmentary than in Stratum 1 of Profile I and far
more intermingled with soil. Additional material included
crab, fish (mullet, catfish, and sheepshead) and avian bone, a
few very small, unidentified ceramic fragments (>5 cm), which
were not collected.
Stratum 2, below Stratum 1, did not extend across the
profile, but rather appeared to have been deposited primarily
on the eastern side of the midden between the time of Stratum
l's upper and lower deposition (Figure 8). This stratum
extended from below Stratum 1's eastern side, down to 60

cm below the surface and tapered off just short of the western
side. It was composed of 40% sandy organic sediment with a
dark grey color, with 60% composed of shells, primarily pear
whelk and small left-handed whelk. Other less frequent shells
included tulips, eastern oyster, quahog clam, moon snail, and
unidentified fish bone. The shell components are partially
fragmented, suggesting some movement (habitation) on top of
this layer. No artifacts were observed in situ.
Stratum 3, below Stratum 2, extended across the profile
(Figure 8). This very thin layer extended from 70 cm to 80
cm below the ground surface at both the eastern and western
profile edges. It was composed of 30% sandy loam and was
colored near a medium to light grey. The additional 70% was
densely packed and highly fragmented shell. These were all
very small in size and included whelk, tulip, and unidentified
fish vertebrae. No artifacts were observed in situ.
Stratum 4, below, Stratum 3, also extended across the
profile from a depth of 80 to 105 cm below the ground surface.
Similar to Stratum 3, this stratum was composed of a medium
to light grey sandy loam nearing 30%, while the additional
70% was composed of densely packed, highly fragmented
shell (but less fragmented than in the strata above). The kinds
of shells observed were similar to those in Stratum 3. Two
small (>3 cm) sand-tempered plain ceramic fragments were
collected from this stratum. In addition, clean up around
Profile II produced one quahog clam valve anvil and one
quahog anvil/chopper.

Stratigraphic Interpretations

The looter holes profiled at Mason Island contained varied
kinds and frequencies of shells, with different consistencies
of soil and whole or fragmented shell matrices. The strata
represent midden layers associated primarily with periods of
food refuse discard, based on the abundant shells and the low
frequency of shell tools and ceramic fragments.
In Profile I, the shell midden was dominated by the
presence of medium to large brown tulip and medium to
small left-handed whelk shells. All shell material in Profile I
was well preserved and intermingled with very little soil and
artifact debris. This suggests that this section of the midden is
related to the dumping of food debris.
In Profile II, small left-handed whelk shells were the most
abundant in the shell midden. All layers contained partially
fragmented shell intermingled with little soil, while those in

the lowest stratum were less crushed. The compact nature may
be related to some activity over the shell midden, especially in
the lower stratum. However, the frequency of cultural material
is low when compared to other habitation sites in Pine Island
Sound. The abundance of small left-handed whelk shells
also may indicate a selection pattern or variation in the local
resources.

Radiocarbon Dating and Interpretation

Five samples of marine shells were collected for AMS
radiocarbon testing. Three were sampled from Profile I and
two from Profile II. The shell type utilized for the samples was
oyster shell.
The resulting radiocarbon dates and the artifacts collected
suggest a relatively close association in time among the different
profiled middens (Table 1). They fall in a calibrated age range
of cal A.D. 800 to 1180 in Profile I, and in a calibrated age
range of cal A.D. 620 to 1080 in Profile II. Table 1 indicates
the measured radiocarbon dates, the conventional radiocarbon
dates, and the 2 sigma calibrated age ranges for each profile.

Profile I Dates

For the three samples analyzed from Profile I, calibrated
date ranges of cal A.D. 800 to 1080 was obtained from FS 7;
cal A.D. 910 to 1180 was obtained from FS 8; and cal A.D. 970
to 1110 was obtained from FS 9. All came from Stratum 2. The
samples were collected at 95 cm for FS 7, 95 cm for FS 8, and
105 cm for FS 9, below the ground surface (Figure 6).
These radiocarbon analyses place human activity
associated with food refuse dumping at the site from ca. cal
A.D. 800 to 1180. This generally falls within the late Woodland
Period, or more specifically the Caloosahatchee IIB period (ca.
A.D. 800 to1200) of the Caloosahatchee Region.

Profile II Dates

For the two samples analyzed from Profile II, calibrated
date ranges are as follows: cal A.D. 620 to 820 was obtained
from FS 16 in Stratum 1, and cal A.D. 900 to 1080 was
obtained from FS 15 in Stratum 4. These were collected at 55
cm for FS 16, and 100 cm for FS 15, below the ground surface
(Figure 8).

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Profiles I and II on Mason Island (8LL65). The measured and conventional ages
are 1 sigma ranges expressed in radiocarbon years B.P. (before present; present = A.D. 1950). The calibrated date
ranges are at 2 sigma as provided by Beta Analytic, Inc., based on the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration.

The radiocarbon results suggest that the activity occurring
in this portion of the island's large shell midden is again
associated with food refuse discard, and some infrequent
habitation, within a range of ca. cal A.D. 620 to 1080. These
dates again fall within the late Woodland Period, or more
specifically the Caloosahatchee IIA (ca. A.D. 600 to 800) and
IIB (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200) periods, of the Caloosahatchee
Region.

Repair

The looter damaged areas profiled during this project
were backfilled in July 2007 by staff of CHPSP. The team
was led by John Aspiolea and George Luer and included Andy
Goodwyne, Brad Ciarcia, Eric Kalbfleish, and John Salem.
The crew lined the pits with non-local "red rock" and modern
glass bottles and then filled them with large volumes of shell
from the surrounding spoil piles (Luer 2008).

Conclusion

The two looter holes we profiled on Mason Island reveal
that a portion of the site was used by prehistoric people as
a location to discard food refuse during the Caloosahatchee
IIB Period (ca. A.D. 800 to 1200) and possibly as early as the
Calooshatchee IIA Period (ca. A.D. 600 to 800). The more
southern Profile II contained fragmented shell and some
compact soil, but very few artifacts. This suggests some
short habitation or processing activity occurred there, but
the deposits in Profile II are unlikely to represent long term,
intensive habitation zones. As at nearby Hooker Key (Luer et
al. 2001:12, 19), it can be hypothesized that activity occurred
on the western side of the island, where the ground is higher
and soil matrix is more compact, while the eastern back portion
of the island was used for deposition of food debris.
The high concentration of whole shells and near complete
absence of intermingled soil and artifacts in the more northern
Profile I indicate that the midden in this area was related to food
refuse. In Profile II, the lower stratum was more compact and
fragmented, especially at the deepest levels, than were strata
we encountered elsewhere. This may reflect some habitation
on the midden in that area, but again the low frequency of
intermingled soil and artifacts likely indicate the midden's
association with discard of food refuse. The high frequency of
tulip shells in Profiles I and II appears to be higher than in other
shell middens in the area, and this may suggest other shellfish
resources were less abundant or being utilized elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our gratitude to those who helped
to make this project possible. They include Chuck Blanchard
and John Aspiolea for sharing their knowledge of the cultural
resources, for acting as our guides and facilitating site access,
and for their vigilance in protecting archaeological resources.
We thank George Luer for his work during the backfilling of
our profiles (with John Aspiolea and the CHPSP crew) and for
his editorial comments on this report. We also appreciate the

work of reviewers, although the authors are responsible for
any remaining errors.

2008 Addendum to Profiling at Mason Island (8LL65),
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. Ms. in
preparation. To be filed with the Florida Master Site
File. Tallahassee.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Conducted for the
Florida Department of Natural Resources by the
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Miami.

Patton, Robert B.
2000 The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey, Phase II: Report
ofInvestigations. Conducted for the Florida Division of
Historical Resources by the Florida Museum of Natural
History. Gainesville.

2001 Spatial Structure and Process of Nonagricultural
Production: Settlement Patterns and Political
Development in Precolumbian Southwest Florida. Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University
of Florida. Gainesville.

Appendix 1. Data for topographic map of Mason Island
shell midden, in feet (FEI Surveying 2002) (see Figure 2).
Y = north-south, X = east-west, Z = elevations. Eleva-
tions are based on an assumed tidal signature along the
shoreline, which is assumed to have an elevation of 1.00
ft. Bearings are based on a magnetic observation of the
control line shown (between Points 1 and 2), which has an
assumed bearing of South 04 degrees, 00 minutes West.
The iron pipe (Point 1) was observed with mapping grade
GPS and has a position of N807515.35, E616219.13 and
the galvanized nail (Point 2) has a position of N807433.28,
E616224.15, based on state plane coordinates NAD 1983

A Florida Heritage Production
Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions
Executive Producer: Brent Weisman
Written by Marshall Riggan
Artwork by Theodore Morris
1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State

The purpose of this study is to understand how and why
Matlacha Pass, in southwestern Florida, was navigated by
aboriginal canoe voyagers during the era of the aboriginal
Pine Island Canal (ca. A.D. 1000-1600, and possibly earlier).
The research is rooted in analogy between the navigational
realities of open, keel-less canoes, ancient and modem, in
plying estuarine waters in Florida. I view Matlacha Pass as
one link in a network of Indian canoe routes that connected
Pine Island Sound and Charlotte Harbor with the mouth of the
Caloosahatchee River and areas beyond, such as Estero Bay
and the Okeechobee region.

Research Approach

My point of view is that of aboriginal canoe navigation
rather than sail or power craft. Observations concerning land
and water forms, water depths and currents, and effects of
tides, winds, and weather are my own. They are based on
research I have conducted in 18-foot-long, mostly keel-less,
open canoes and on foot, between the years of 1981 and 2007.
Beginning in late 1997 and continuing to the present, I have
continued to make research observations during my work for
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) at
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park (CHPSP).
The methods of my research over those years are discussed
and explained in detail in Analogy and Aboriginal Canoe
Use in Southwest Florida (Blanchard 1999) and in Canoe
Navigation in the Northern Reaches of Charlotte Harbor
(Blanchard 2002). I shall occasionally cite or quote those
articles when they can illuminate or support points I make in
the body of this paper. For example, in this study, I adhere
to the premise that "many present-day conditions along the
coast of southwest Florida are analogous to those of the area's
recent past (here defined as approximately 350 to 1500 years
ago)" (Blanchard 1999:23).

The Study Area

Matlacha (pronounced "matt-luh-shay") Pass' is the
inclusive name given to the complex assemblage of estuarine
bays, channels, small sounds, creeks, points, islands, and tidal
flats that lie between the eastern shore of Pine Island and
the western shore of Cape Coral, Florida (Figure 1). Much
of Matlacha Pass is state-owned and managed by DEP The
waters lie primarily within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve,
and much of its adjacent mangrove and saltern wetlands (e.g.,
Little Pine Island and the western shore of Cape Coral) lie
within CHPSP.

Matlacha Pass tends for 12 miles in a north-northwest
to south-southeast direction, from the southeastern corer of
Charlotte Harbor to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. Its
northern terminus is 2 miles wide between the northern tip of
Smokehouse Key2 (just off northeastern Pine Island) and the
mangrove island maze that marks the interface of Big Dead
Creek with Charlotte Harbor (west of Cape Coral). Its southern
terminus is also 2 miles wide between the southeastern tip of
Pine Island (near St. James City) and the tip of Sword Point on
the northern bank of the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River.
Tidal waters flow into and out of Matlacha Pass in two
places. On its southern end, incoming tides push the waters
of San Carlos Bay past Sanibel Island's Point Ybel, then past
Punta Rassa into southern Matlacha Pass and Punta Blanca
Bay, and then up past Reckem's Point at speeds of as much
as 8 mph before slowing to a halt north of Underhill Point
and McCardle Island. Near the northern end of Matlacha
Pass, Boca Grande Pass acts like a nozzle for incoming tides,
pushing water over and through the sandbars off of Bokeelia
and down past Smokehouse Bay toward Indian Field at speeds
of as much as 10 mph before gradually becoming undetectable
near the Matlacha bridge. Outgoing tides are less dramatic at
both ends of Matlacha Pass.3
Through the 7.5 mile central stretch of Matlacha Pass
(between Indian Field and Reckem's Point), currents are more-
or-less self-canceling and become effectively moot. Wind
directions, wind speeds, and water depths are always the main
factors effecting canoe navigation there. In that stretch, tides
rise and fall as they have done over the past 350-1500 years,
and my analogical research principle may be comfortably
applied.
The width of Matlacha Pass varies from 1 to 3 miles. I
treat Little Pine Island (just east of Pine Island) as an island
feature within Matlacha Pass. I also treat Pine Island Creek
(which separates the two Pine Islands) as a working part of
Matlacha Pass proper.
Little Pine Island (Figure 2) is state-owned and part of
CHPSP. Its center is underlain by karst limestone that accounts
for as much as a third of the island's area. Around that core,
especially on the east, southeast, and south, mangrove forest
has grown outward. It is such a stable environment that a
number of black mangrove trees inland from the area of Mud
Hole Creek have diameters of 40 to 50 inches (two measured
at 48 inches and one at 52 inches, which rival the largest black
mangrove trees in Florida). According to Dr. Terry Tattar, a
mangrove specialist, such dimensions likely indicate trees of
great age, perhaps ca. 500 years.

Figure 2. Little Pine Island. Note Pine Island Creek and the anomaly (black rectangular shape) in the creek's mid-stretch.
The sites of McCardle Island and Pine Island Creek #1 are approximately mid-way between Indian Field and Sword Point
(adapted from LABINS 2004).

Within Little Pine Island (south and southwest of the karst
core) is a broad marsh that might have been part of an earlier,
wider Pine Island Creek (prior to the expansion of mangrove
forest and sedimentation). The marsh now drains through the
mangrove forest into Mud Hole and Rock Creek. East of Little
Pine Island, the waters of Matlacha Pass are, for the most part,

devoid of significant tidal current. Deep silt deposits along the
island's southeastern and southern margins, and thick algal
growth in estuarine waters that do not flush tidally, help to
nourish vigorous, long-lived mangroves.
Pine Island Creek is funnel-shaped at its northern and
southern ends (Figure 2). These ends compress water flow

BLANCHARD

Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

and produce substantial tidal current in their narrow portions
(running north to south on the incoming tide at the northern
end, and south to north on the incoming tide at the southern
end). Outgoing tides produce similar, but lesser, currents in
reverse.
Where Pine Island Creek's tidal flows meet and nullify
each other is a north-south, rectangular, tidal lake (7/8 of a
mile long by 1/4 of a mile wide). Incoming tides raise the
lake's water level, which lowers after they turn. At high or
low tide, the lake is canoe navigable (water perches in it at low
tide). To me, it represents a hydrological anomaly.
I feel reasonably confident that the Indians maintained
a navigable corridor through Pine Island Creek during the
heyday of the aboriginal Pine Island Canal. I wish to suggest
that Pine Island Creek's rectangular anomaly may be a feature
engineered by the Indians in that tidal corridor (Figure 2). One
argument for the anomaly as an artifact is that it fills and drains
in opposite directions at its ends. The anomaly could date to
the historic period, although I cannot find any detailed historic
maps that do not show the feature. There is a particularly
good 125-year-old chart (United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey [U.S.C.G.S.] 1883) that depicts the feature exactly as
it presently looks (long before there was a Pine Island Road).

Initial Research Questions

Apart from a general curiosity about the canoe-navigability
of Matlacha Pass, the driving force behind my research there
has always been my desire to understand the role and function
of the aboriginal Pine Island Canal (8LL34). I was anecdotally
aware of the canal's existence in the early 1980s. By the late
1980s, thanks to information provided by Luer (1989a, 1989b),
I visited both its western terminus at Pineland on the Randell
property and its eastern terminus in the mangrove forest west
of Indian Field (8LL39).
Archaeologists George Luer and Ryan Wheeler, in their
article titled How The Pine Island Canal Worked: Topography,
Hydraulics, and Engineering, characterize the linear
archaeological feature as:
.. an aboriginal canoe canal located in Lee
County on the coast of southwestern Florida. It was
approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) long. . The Pine
Island Canal crossed the width of Pine Island and
is believed to have facilitated canoe travel between
Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass. The canal's
location near the northern end of Pine Island (rather
than the island's mid-section) is believed to reflect its
orientation to destinations beyond the canal itself. .
[Luer and Wheeler 1997:115]
It was easy for me to appreciate the idea of destinations
to the west of the canal. Pine Island Sound is rich in major
archaeological sites within dependable canoe distance, and the
Gulf of Mexico is clearly visible to the west-southwest of the
entrance at Pineland. It also was easy for me to understand
the strategic advantage provided by the canal in avoiding the
wildly variable navigational problems presented by wind, tide,
and current at the northern end of Pine Island in order to reach
Matlacha Pass.

However, gaining an appreciation of destinations to the
east of the Pine Island Canal's eastern terminus, the Matlacha
Pass side, was enigmatic from the outset, and solving the
enigma turned out to be almost purely a canoe research
problem. If the canal played a vital role in centralization,
communication, tribute, and exchange (Luer 1989a), and if
its western portal were open to the sites of Pine Island Sound
and to canoes from there and beyond, where did canoes go
when they reached the Matlacha Pass end of the Pine Island
Canal? Conversely, how much eastern side traffic was there,
and where did it come from?
At first the answer seemed straightforward. In the late
1980s and into the 1990s, the possibility of a second canal (a
hypothetical "Cape Coral Canal") was a widely held notion in
the southwest Florida archaeological community. A possible
canal was hypothesized to begin somewhere on the eastern
side of Matlacha Pass (more-or-less directly across from
Indian Field and the eastern portal of the Pine Island Canal)
and to run across the interior of Cape Coral to reach Yellow
Fever Creek, which in turn flowed into Hancock Creek and the
Caloosahatchee River between Cape Coral and Fort Myers.
Luer, in his publication (1989a) and in his personal
communications to me, always qualified this route as "possible"
(hypothetical), adding that it might have been dependent on
seasonal rains in order to be used. During a cultural resource
survey of Lee County in 1987, he provided a possible route
to archaeologist Robert Austin, who recorded it in the Florida
Master Site File (FMSF) as 8LL756 in order to flag it "until
further determination can be made" (Luer 1989a: 108).
From the late 1980s through the late 1990s, I regarded a
possible canoe route across Cape Coral as more "probable"
than "possible." I reasoned that the route would have been
popular in prehistoric times, providing safe, dependable, rapid
transport to and from the south Florida interior. Even though
the natural surface of Cape Coral was obliterated by recent
land development, I speculated that canoe traffic would have
left a mark somewhere on the northeastern shore of Matlacha
Pass and/or along Hancock Creek and its confluence with the
Caloosahatchee River. I further thought that Matlacha Pass and
Hancock Creek were so shallow, mucky, and overgrown, that
only a dedicated researcher in a canoe would have a chance of
discovering remains associated with a possible canal.
To that end, I devoted scores of hours and an entire research
season (the Winter and Spring of 1997) to the systematic
investigation of the shoreline of northeastern Matlacha Pass
and its inland drainages (Figure 3). Beginning at the south,
I paddled and searched all the way from the Pine Island
Road causeway northward to the point where the coastline
solidifies and swings subtly away to the north-northeast. I put
in considerable time on the Caloosahatchee River end as well.
Nothing turned up. In 1999, Luer laid the hypothetical "Cape
Coral Canal" to rest in an article in The Florida Anthropologist
(Luer 1999).
Those research hours were by no means spent in vain,
however. I became familiar with a tiny shell midden on Bird
Rookery Key (8LL64) located across Matlacha Pass to the
east-northeast of the magnificent Indian Field site. I also
established that Bird Rookery Key and two other small shell

middens of similar composition, Matlacha Pass #1 (8LL1913)
and the Blocker Site (8LL2493), were the only aboriginal sites,
major or minor, that I could find along that whole convoluted,
island-studded coast (Figure 3).
In addition, I learned that this stretch of coastline was
not particularly canoe-friendly water. When the wind came
strongly out of the north-northeast or east, as it frequently did,
its western fringe became a long, tortuous "weather point."
Weather points occur wherever a canoeist must turn directly
into the wind in order to continue making progress in the chosen
direction of travel (see Blanchard 2002:37). Furthermore,
strong winds funneling southward from Charlotte Harbor or
blowing off the Cape Coral mainland often made crossing
Matlacha Pass from the eastern portal of the Pine Island Canal
and Indian Field prohibitively difficult. That did not bode well
for the safe passage of aboriginal trade and tribute.
Moreover, any strong, sustained blow from across the
entire arc of Northwest through North and Northeast pushed
water south out of Buzzard Bay and from around the islands at
the mouth of Big Dead Creek, making even canoe travel there
impossible. Deeper open water to the northward appeared to
be the only navigational route, and that was simply too much
work and too dangerous under those conditions.
The nearest aboriginal coastal site to the north is located
well up the eastern shore of Charlotte Harbor. It is a shell
midden (now mostly buried by recent fill) at Crow Key, which
I recorded as 8CH509 in the FMSF. Crow Key is named Key
Point as late as 1981 on nautical charts, and it is 10 miles from
Indian Field, far beyond the range of a possible route across
Cape Coral. Long before the axe fell on the hypothesized
Cape Coral Canal, the canoe-navigational evidence against its
existence had become formidable.
But the fact of the Pine Island Canal remained. Its eastern
portal and the presence of Indian Field must mean that canal
travelers from the west most likely turned south into Matlacha
Pass in order to reach the Caloosahatchee River, and that
travelers from the south had to be able to navigate safely and
dependably northward through Matlacha Pass. Otherwise, the
Pine Island Canal must have some less obvious purpose, such
as for ceremonial activities or as an emergency escape route.
The other more likely possibility, as a dependable travel and
tribute route, seemed the most provable since, as I noted earlier,
steady traffic must have left some traces of its occurrence.
In the past, the practical realities of open canoe travel
(such as launch and landing points, lines of sight, wind and
chop avoidance strategies, etc.) had often led me straight
to shoreline cultural deposits (Blanchard 1999). I needed,
therefore, to become familiar firsthand in my canoe with
Matlacha Pass under a variety of weather and water conditions
in order to see what kind of work hours and landfalls they
produced.
Indian Field and the eastern tip of Sword Point became
the north and south targets of my travel experiments, and the
waters and shores between those targets became my laboratory.
Through the kindness of Pine Island resident Connie Lollar,
who lives 1 mile south of Indian Field on Pine Island Creek,
I was able to establish a reliable northern launch point. An
equally kind harbor master at the Tarpon Bay Yacht Club and
Marina, 2 miles east of Sword Point on the northern bank of

the Caloosahatchee River, let me park at the water's edge
and launch whenever I wished. Interim canoe ports were at
the Sandy Hook restaurant in the town of Matlacha, the Pine
Island Road bridge over Pine Island Creek, and Lee County's
Tropical Point Park located on southeastern Pine Island directly
on Matlacha Pass opposite Reckem's Point.
Though my search for traces of a Cape Coral canoe
route consumed a fair amount of time through the mid-
1990s, I begrudge none of it. I dedicated the next 10 years to
understanding the central and southern portions of Matlacha
Pass. That provided much provocative data.

How Indians Navigated Matlacha Pass

After a lifetime of open canoe experience, I have
determined that within the optimum parameters of 8 mph or
less head winds, or tail winds, or no winds, I can average 3
mph as the sole paddler of an 18-foot-long, keel-less, fiberglass
or aluminum canoe. With two paddlers, the individual work is
less, but the speed is essentially the same, as are the travel
strategies (see Blanchard 1999).
The surface distance from Indian Field to Sword Point,
whether one chooses the more open route east of Little Pine
Island or follows the inside route through Pine Island Creek,
is approximately 10 miles (Figure 4). On seven occasions
of especially stable surface conditions, I have made the trip
between the two points in 4 to 5 hours of paddling time. Rest
time, camp time, site investigative time, etc., are subtracted.
I feel confident that 4.5 work hours is a realistic base line for
the trip.
Of course, stable surface conditions do occur in southwest
Florida, especially at night and in the early morning. Under
them, one may simply point the canoe and go. Equally normal
and instructive conditions include gusting or sustained winds
of 10 to 18 mph out of the cardinal directions (N, S, E, W) or
their quarters (NW, NE, SW, SE). Under wind conditions more
extreme than 18 mph, the best rule is to stay home and mend
your boat.
In my discussion of wind conditions and travel routes,
below, I frequently use the term "lee shore." It refers to the
relatively windless corridor that occurs close to a shoreline
when a breeze is blowing away from it. When a shoreline
is clothed in sizeable mangrove trees, the corridor can be a
calm one even when winds are strong. Lee shores change
with the variability of the prevailing winds, but they must
be understood and paid attention to because their presence is
crucial to successful canoe navigation on windy days.

Southerly Travel

Clockwise around the windrose in 10 to 18 mph conditions,
the travel strategies aboriginal navigators would have used
from Indian Field south to Sword Point are as follows:
North Wind. Drop straight into Pine Island Creek and
follow it to the Rock Creek lee shore at the southern end of
Little Pine Island. Then island-hop to Which-Way (a discussion
of the Which-Way Site is below), then arc across to the eastern
shore, south of Underhill Point. Follow the shoreline south
around Reckem's Point. Duck into Punta Blanca Bay at first

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

BLANCHARD MATLACHA PASS

Figure 4. Aerial image of Pine Island and Matlacha Pass showing places mentioned in the text (adapted from
LABINS 2004). The route shown for the Pine Island Canal is approximate.

BLANCHARD

MATLACHA PASS

Tiii FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

opportunity and follow it south to the western end of Sword
Point, on the northern bank of the Caloosahatchee River.
Northeast Wind. One can always drop down Pine Island
Creek to Rock Creek and Which-Way, but things become very
difficult from there. The more dependable strategy is to sidle
toward the eastern shore using the lee of the channel islands
north of Matlacha town, then stick to the eastern lee shore to
McCardle Island and all the way to Sword Point. There might
have been a passage through the bayous east of Underhill Point
in ancient times, but I have never discovered it.
East Wind. Matlacha Pass's eastern shore is still the prize
but under a harder blow, it may be expedient to use the lee of
Panther Key to help get down Pine Island Creek. Then, follow
Rock Creek to the small point southeast of the southern end of
Mud Hole Creek and try to make the jump to the southern side
of Underhill Point. From there, or anywhere south of there,
follow the lee shore straight to Sword Point.
Southeast Wind. This is the trickiest of wind directions
for southerly travel because Matlacha Pass is oriented to the
southeast. If one can get away from Indian Field at all without
dumping the canoe, travel is dependable down Pine Island
Creek to Rock Creek and can be improvised from there to
Which-Way. Then, the soundest expedient may be to wait until
after dark and cover the last 3 miles after the wind falls off.
South Wind. A sustained due-south wind is the rarest
weather condition, but it does occur. On such occasions, the
strategy is to get to the northern entrance of Pine Island Creek,
hauling the vessel if necessary, then go all the way to the long
weather point at Masters Landing, then to the shorter weather
point at the northern end of St. James Creek. St. James Creek
is dependable to the southeastern end of Pine Island. From
there a south wind actually will aid in the 2.5 mile crossing to
Sword Point.
Southwest Wind. Use the lee of the eastern shore of Pine
Island all the way to the northern entrance to St. James Creek.
Then, take the creek or follow along the eastern lee shore for
1.5 to 2 miles until you can ride the wind across Matlacha Pass
to reach Sword Point.
West Wind. West winds are fairly common and often
gusty. As with a southwest blow, follow Pine Island Creek and
the lee shore of Pine Island to the northern end of St. James
Creek, then use the wind to assist the crossing to the northern
entrance of Punta Blanca Bay. Take the bay south to Sword
Point.
Northwest Wind. This is the commonest winter wind
direction and the best for southerly travel. The Pine Island
Creek route is the most direct, with lee shore all the way
southward, and a straight 5 mile shot from its southern mouth
to Sword Point. The main body of Matlacha Pass is also viable
but may require use of Mud Hole Creek on the southeastern
side of Little Pine Island to reach Which-Way and to position
oneself for the final 3 mile run to Sword Point.

Northerly Travel

Clockwise around the windrose in 10 to 18 mph winds,
the travel strategies aboriginal navigators would have used
from Sword Point north to Indian Field are as follows:

North Wind. Take Punta Blanca Bay to its northern
entrance, then proceed to the weather point at Reckem's Point.
Haul the canoe around the point until the lee of the eastern
shore becomes usable. Continue to just south of Underhill
Point, then navigate an arc across to the lee of Which-Way.
The parabola of the arc will depend on the skill and strength
of the paddler(s). Miscalculation here can send one straight
to St. James City. From Which-Way, use the small island lee
shores to reach Rock Creek and from there paddle or haul up
Pine Island Creek to its northern entrance and then paddle on
to Indian Field.
Northeast Wind. Use the same departure strategy as with
a north wind. At Underhill Point, the northeast blow should
make the arc to Which-Way a little easier and miscalculation
will not take one as far south. Once in Pine Island Creek, travel
will be more protected overall, though the last stretch from the
northern end of the creek will almost certainly require some
hauling.
East Wind. This is a good wind for travel up the eastern
side of Matlacha Pass. The shallow northern side of Underhill
Point will require some hauling, but once one is south of
McCardle Island, it is lee shore all the way to Buzzard Bay
and an easy hop across Matlacha Pass to Indian Field. One
may cross at Underhill Point and use Pine Island Creek, of
course, but the last stretch from the northern end may be risky
for transported goods with a brisk wind dead on the beam of
the boat an excellent chance of tipping over!
Southeast Wind. This is the best wind of all for travel to
Indian Field, including a wind-assisted 5.5 mile straight run
from Sword Point to the center reaches of Pine Island Creek
and a much less risky run from the northern end of the creek
to Indian Field. The east passage is equally doable, with lee
shore up to McCardle Island and a 4.5 mile fairly straight run
into Indian Field.
South Wind. Calculate a gentle, north-northeasterly arc
from Sword Point to Masters Landing or Which-Way, then ride
the wind straight up Pine Island Creek to Indian Field (rare,
because due-south winds are so fleeting, but nonetheless, my
personal favorite).
Southwest or West Wind. These are common blows, and
very tricky from Sword Point because the lee of Pine Island is
so hard to reach. They present extremely wet travel, and they
are hazardous for transported goods because of waves on the
port beam. The soundest strategy is to cross Matlacha Pass to
reach St. James Creek at night or very early morning, when the
wind is down, then run up the lee shore of Pine Island and up
Pine Island Creek in the blustery daylight.
Northwest Wind. One might fiddle with Punta Blanca Bay,
or cross to St. James Creek in the night, but the grim reality is
headwind all the way. Stay in port and mend your gear.

Aboriginal Sites and Way-Points in Matlacha Pass

The vestiges of a number of aboriginal sites north of
Matlacha Pass can still be observed along the northern and
northeastern shore of Pine Island. Among them are Burgess
Island (8LL47), Howard Shell Mound (8LL44), Calusa Island
(8LL45), and several low, linear, domestic, midden-like

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

BLANCHARD MATLACHA PASS

deposits in the bayous and mangroves south of Bokeelia, and
Calusa Island, and down on the eastern shore of Smokehouse
Bay.
But, except for the Howard Shell Mound (which almost
certainly kept its strategic role as a watchtower and a beacon4
on the southern shore of Charlotte Harbor), I think that the
rest of them might not have maintained the same navigational
relevance after the opening of the Pine Island Canal. Its
presence obviated the necessity for canoe treks via Jug Creek
and around northern Pine Island when going from upper
Pine Island Sound and the barrier islands to Matlacha Pass
(or vice versa), replacing them with a secure passage. These
thoughts incorporate important assumptions, namely that
canoe routes played a key role in influencing site location
(both establishment and persistence) and that some planning
was involved at the multi-community level.
From the Pine Island Canal's eastern portal, Matlacha
Pass facilitated the delivery of canoe-borne goods and people
to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River (the gateway to the
interior of south Florida) in as little as 4.5 hours. Conversely,
it facilitated the delivery of goods and people from aboriginal
Florida's southern interior to the port of Pineland and the
north/south travel and exchange routes of Florida's central and
southwest coast.
The material remains of that canoe traffic are still in
evidence in Matlacha Pass to this day, and the analogical
experimental device of open canoe navigation as an
investigative tool has, I believe, successfully revealed most of
them. Here, I present a brief discussion of them, from north to
south through Matlacha Pass.

Bird Rookery Key Site (8LL64)

This is small shell midden on a small mangrove island
near the northeastern end of Matlacha Pass. It is low,
tidally collapsed, and composed mostly of oyster shell with
inclusions of king's crown and moon snail shells. This is the
compositional signature of the low linear sites in Smokehouse
Bay, the bayous in back of Calusa Island, and the relic linear
deposits protruding from beneath the northern end of the
Indian Field shell mound. Their ceramic signature is mostly
sand-tempered plain ware of the sort common to scores of
Charlotte Harbor sites.
These attributes suggest to me a domestic, fishing-oriented,
coastal human presence with modest dwellings raised on stilts
over shallow tidal water. I envision the detritus of habitation as
being swept out the back (or the front), so that it was scoured
and sanitized by the always-hungry small creatures of the tide.
I think that such small domestic settlements typified Matlacha
Pass and its environs for hundreds of years, especially before
the opening of the Pine Island Canal.

Matlacha Pass #1 (8LL1913) and the Blocker Site (8LL2493)

These two small shell middens are deep within the
mangrove island maze that forms the northeastern entry to
Matlacha Pass. Both are along a meandering back-bay passage
running northward 3 miles from Bird Rookery Key and Big

Dead Creek. They were discovered ca. 1990 by Department of
Natural Resources Law Enforcement Ranger Craig Blocker.
The sites are uneroded and contain primarily oyster shell with
some king's crown and moon snail shells. Thin, sand-tempered
plain sherds occur on both these domestic sites.

Indian Field (8LL39)

This is a special site! It is privately owned (posted) and
covers nearly 3 acres. Its northwestern portion rises to 10 feet
above the water (see a 1982 sketch map in Luer 1989a:Figure
6). It tapers gradually to the south and southeast through
terraces and rolling, sinuous hummocks. A canal-like feature
parallels two-thirds of its western side and is bounded by low,
north/south tending linear ridges. The key's southwestern
terminus includes discrete linear hummocks that suggest
breakwaters and landing areas suited to canoe traffic.
Lightning whelk and horse conch shell hammers and
quahog valve anvil fragments litter the site's margins,
particularly on the western and southwestern sides. Its ceramic
assemblage, mostly associated with the berms and canal-like
feature on the southwestern side, includes late sand-tempered
plain, Belle Glade Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, and
Pinellas Plain sherds. The overall orientation of the site seems
to be to the south and southeast.
The shell composition of the main mound, and most of the
satellites, is oyster with an embellishment of fighting conch,
lightning whelk, and pear whelk. The highest elevations
contain many of these whelk shells. There is nothing else of
comparable composition in Matlacha Pass.
I interpret the immature lightning whelk, mature pear
whelk, and mature fighting conch shells as gathered from
neither Matlacha Pass nor the southeastern end of Charlotte
Harbor. The local domestic sites in those areas are composed
of oyster, king's crown, and moon snail shells, as noted above.
Those shells dominate the food shells in the typical middens
of Matlacha Pass. Other kinds of shells are rare. On the other
hand, lightning and pear whelks abound in Pine Island Sound,
and fighting conchs are denizens of the Gulf shore and inlets.
Whether as live food shells, or as dried shells for construction
purposes, I hypothesize that they were transported to Indian
Field, by canoe, using the Pine Island Canal as their shipping
route.5

Tranquility Bay and Channel Islands

From Indian Field southeast down the main body of
Matlacha Pass, and south down Pine Island Creek, there do
not appear to be any traces of aboriginal cultural deposits for
4.5 to 5 miles. This would seem to make sense since operators
of transport canoes packed, trimmed, and outward bound from
Indian field would probably put 1 or 2 hours of travel behind
them before they paused for water or rest. Indians on inward
bound canoes might well choose to spend their last couple
hours on the water making for the safety of port.
Several islands just north and south of the Matlacha
bridge contain substantial berms of shell-meal and sand, some
holding remains of small historic dwellings and camps. But,

BLANCHARD

MATLACHA PASS

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

I have never seen any aboriginal food shell, shell tools, or
sherds on them, including during my intensive reconnaissance
of early 1999. These islands include Little Panther Key, Bear
Key, Deer Key, Ibis Island, Lanier Key, Heron Island, 29-Acre
Island, and Camp Key to the northwest of Matlacha bridge, as
well as Mahoe Key and Big Buttonwood Key to the south of
the bridge.
I have heard local "bar rumors" of a large site said to have
been destroyed in the construction of Matlacha town. Maybe.
Yet a major Indian site should have left some trace, and I have
turned up nothing in 20 years of search and beer bribes.

Pine Island Creek #1 (8LL2479)

The nearest unmistakable site south of Indian Field is
on Pine Island Creek. It lies deep in the mangroves on the
western side of the creek, 1.5 miles south of the Pine Island
Road bridge and 200 feet west of the end of a small bayou.
I was told of it by the late Bud House, a knowledgeable Pine
Island informant and friend. I managed to locate it and reach
it only once on a very high tide. It is 4.5 miles from Indian
Field and 5 miles north-northwest of Sword Point or about 2
hour's travel time from each. The site is a textbook way-point
for travel southward on a northwest wind, or northward on a
southeast wind.
I was able to spend very little time at the site because
of the fleeting high tide. It seemed to be 100 feet in length,
somewhat rounded, low, and composed mostly of oyster and
king's crown shells, with a few lightning whelk shell tools,
sand-tempered plain sherds, and rimless sherds that might
have been Belle Glade Plain ware. It looked like a domestic
deposit, and was clearly from a time when the bayou was
cleared back to it and the creek was wider. My understanding
is that it is under private ownership, and I recorded it in the
FMSF as "Pine Island Creek #1."

McCardle Island Site (8LL 773)

The first large aboriginal feature south of Indian Field is
located in the east passage (around the eastern side of Little
Pine Island). It is the McCardle Island site, a shell midden on
the northeastern end of McCardle Island. It is 5 miles southeast
of Indian Field and 5 miles north-northwest of Sword Point.
The site is an east/west-tending oval covering a substantial
area, estimated at 3 acres. It was heavily farmed in the first
half of the 1900s, and most of it appears to have been plowed
over and over again. Now abandoned and thickly overgrown,
the invasive Brazilian pepper is daunting.
Much of the surface is a coarsely crushed amalgam of earth
and shell. It has an elevated portion toward its western end that
still has some integrity and appears to be composed mostly
of oyster shell. Though plows did their damage, identifiable
sherds indicate a mix of Belle Glade Plain, Pinellas Plain, and
early and late sand-tempered plain ware.
I hypothesize that the McCardle Island site was much
smaller before the advent of the Pine Island Canal, and that it
gained size and importance as a major way-point in the Pass
when the canal was in use. McCardle Island is reminiscent of

Josslyn Island in terms of its size and placement well out in
the water in a position to see far off; in this case past Underhill
Point to the southwest and up past Matlacha town to the
northwest. Like Josslyn Island, too, it has a long "beard" of
mangrove forest four times its length that has granulated in,
downwind or downstream from the site.6 There is a hint of
a canal-like feature between its southwestern corner and the
"beard."

Which-Way Site (8LL2021)

The next feature southwest of McCardle Island and
southeast of the Pine Island Creek site is a mangrove island
supporting a sizeable shell midden. I explored it in early 1999,
when I called it "Peterson Island" after its private landowners.
In the first days of January 2000, George Luer and I named
it the "Which-Way Site" after we visited it by canoe and
discussed its pivotal position in Matlacha Pass canoe travel
(situated at the juncture of the two routes through the Pass:
Pine Island Creek to the west, and the main Pass to the east). I
now think that "The Roadhouse" or "The Inevitable" site might
have been better names because no matter which direction I
travel or which side of the Pass I choose for my navigational
experiments, I always seem to wind up landing there.
A decade ago, its northeastern point had a broad flat
surface high above the water with well-established red
and black mangrove trees to its west. Dense shell mound
vegetation, including gumbo limbo trees, crowns the site's
southwest-tending, slowly tapering, linear ridge. Until eroded
by recent Hurricane Charley or Wilma, it boasted a concrete
post marking the U.S.C.G.S. topographic station named "Nina
1957."
The ridge's basic composition is oyster shell, with some
king's crown shells and bay scallop valves. Eroding from
the midden and awash in the tide were lightning whelk shell
hammers and their fragments, a horse conch columella hammer,
many sizeable quahog left valve fragments of probable anvils,
pieces of sizeable giant cockle valves, and ceramic sherds.
Farther south, Luer found a Glades Tooled rim sherd on the
surface of the site's central ridge.
The site's elevated northern tip is eroded and gone now,
but the remains of large buttonwood and other trees that it
supported lie in the water's edge. However, its commanding
view of Reckem's Point and Sword Point to the southeast still
testifies to why, like a roadhouse, it came to be built there
(Figure 5). By-passed and ignored by motor boat traffic, and
unrecorded until I filed a FMSF form in the Spring of 2001, it
was an inevitable canoe way-point whichever way one chose to
travel, and it thoroughly justifies my analogical experiment.

Masters Landing

Masters Landing is the broad point on the western shore
of Matlacha Pass, south of Pine Island Creek. It is not an
archaeological site, but might have been a way-point. It has lost
the integrity of its original shoreline because of construction of
a high-voltage line and maintenance road. The location is so
often a landfall during my canoe navigation of the Pass that I

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

BLANCHARD MATLACHA PASS

Figure 5. A canoe's-eye view down southeastern Matlacha Pass. This vantage is from the eroding northern tip of the Which-
Way Site. The power line crosses the Pass from Cape Coral (to the left) to reach Pine Island (to the right) on its way to
Sanibel Island. The distant buildings are on Punta Rassa.

have come to assume that there must have been an aboriginal
signature there at one time, just as there still is, though fast
disappearing, on the eastern shore just south of Underhill
Point.

Underhill Point Site (8LL1412)

Three quarters of a mile to the east of Which-Way and
one quarter mile south of Underhill Point is the state-owned
Underhill Point site. Its western edge is mostly eroded away
now, covered with a shellmeal berm, but it still shows gumbo
limbo trees inland to the east for 200 feet, and lightning whelk
shell hammers and cutting-edged tools continue to wash into
the Pass here. Sherds were always scarce.
It is a good place to wait for northerly and easterly winds
to ease before one heads around the Underhill weather point on
the way up the eastern shore to McCardle Island and beyond,
or jumps across to Pine Island Creek. The cutting-edged tools
are unusual for sites in Matlacha Pass. They suggest that the
Indians did some wood-working here, perhaps while waiting
on the wind.

Reckem s Point Site (8LL774)

A mile south of Underhill Point is the Reckem's Point
site, now all but gone. It was once faced with a 3-foot-high
wall of oyster midden and had a cement county marker 10
yards east of the water's edge. It shed many late period pottery
fragments (e.g., thin-walled, incurving rim sherds, ca. A.D.
800-1600) into the waves and tidal currents of Matlacha Pass.
A shellmeal berm covers all that now may remain of the site.
At short distances to its east, in the mangroves, are several low,
linear, oyster shell deposits that appear to be natural berms
deposited by waves and currents along former shorelines.

St. James Creek #1 (8LL2480)

To the southwest of Reckem's Point, across Matlacha
Pass, is the northern entrance to St. James Creek, a wind-free
inside highway to the southeastern end of Pine Island. Along
the western side of the creek is an aboriginal site now owned
by the Calusa Land Trust (CLT) and Nature Preserve of Pine
Island. Located in their St. James Creek Preserve, it is near the

BLANCHARD

MATLACHA PASS

Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

St. Jude Nature Trail (CLT 2005). It is similar in appearance
to (though twice as large as) the site on Pine Island Creek. I
recorded it in the FMSF as "St. James Creek #1." Certainly,
canoe travelers from the St. James City area would have
chosen protected St. James Creek on their way up Matlacha
Pass's western side.

Pine Island #2 Site (8LL26)

There is a great deal of disturbed shell midden material
to be seen along the St. James City waterfront at Pine Island's
extreme southeastern shore. This site apparently was intact
when Cushing (1897:16) described it as a long shell ridge.
Based on Cushing, Goggin (1949:284) named it the Pine
Island 2 site. Since Cushing's time, it apparently was removed
for construction material. I have heard that some of it was
cannibalized for road fill and house pads in the late 1940s and
early 1950s.

Sword Point Site (8LL9)

I was long aware that there had been a shell mound in
St. James City, and that Shell Point and Kinzie Cove on the
southern bank of the Caloosahatchee River mouth had shell
midden deposits consumed for fill in the 1910s and 1920s,
where two wooden ceremonial tablets were dredged from the
river (Allerton, Luer, and Carr 1984:46 [WT#3, WT#4]). I also
had read reports by Goggin (1949:279-280), Sears (1967), and
Piper Archaeology (Austin 1987) that listed and described
rapidly eroding coastal deposits on the northern shore of the
river mouth, and I had visited them and noted yearly attrition
to the remains.
But on an afternoon in February, 2001, a day with blustery
northwest winds, as I was experimenting with Punta Blanca
Creek and Bay as an alternative route north to Reckem's Point,
I caught a glimpse of the gray bark of a tall tree within the
interior of state-owned Sword Point Island. It looked like it
might be strangler fig or mastic, or a tall Jamaica dogwood. It
was not a tree or bark color that one sees in sea-level mangrove
forest. There was nothing I knew in the lore or literature to
suggest there might be anything significant in the interior of
the one-half-mile-per-side equilateral triangle of Sword Point
Island.
I managed a fleeting compass heading on the glimpse
of gray bark. Sure enough, it led me into the forest to the
northeastern terminus of a long, southwest-tending ridge of
oyster shell that contained a central portion with an elevation
of 5 to 6 feet. It supported Jamaica dogwood, dense white
stopper, and gumbo limbo.
Over the next few weeks, I located most of the rest of the
island's interior site features. They include hundreds of feet of
linear middens (some running closely parallel to each other),
possible fish enclosures or weirs constructed of low ridges
of oyster shells, and an apparent flowing freshwater spring
with surrounding midden deposits. With the help of Keith
Laakkonen and Chris Reed of DEP, and archaeologist Corbett
Torrence, we produced a sketch map of these site features. I
interpret them as having supported stilt dwellings and canoe

ports, with a central commons area built of local midden
material raised 5 or 6 feet above the water.
This was the final piece of the Matlacha Pass puzzle,
the yin to Indian Field's yang. This was the launch point of
travel north from the Caloosahatchee River through Matlacha
Pass to Indian Field, and the destination of travel south from
the eastern portal of the Pine Island Canal through Matlacha
Pass to the Caloosahatchee River. From the point of view of
analogical canoe travel experiment, the Sword Point Site had
to be there, and there it is.

Concluding Remarks

I interpret Matlacha Pass as a north-south corridor for
canoe traffic between the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River
at Sword Point and the eastern portal of the aboriginal Pine
Island Canal at Indian Field. I view the Sword Point site as a
river's mouth village and canoe marina, whereas I see Indian
Field more as a customs and immigration center at the eastern
gateway (via the canal) to the port of Pineland and other sites
around upper Pine Island Sound. The site architecture of Indian
Field is elaborate, and I speculate that it may be built over an
earlier, smaller, domestic fishing site. Some of its shells appear
to be from areas other than Matlacha Pass, and might have
been transported to Indian Field by Indians arriving from other
areas (e.g., Pine Island Sound, via the Pine Island Canal).
I think that both the Indian Field and Sword Point sites
oversaw, in their own ways, the canoe traffic of exchange
and tribute between the interior of southern Florida and the
southwestern Gulf coast during the era of the Pine Island
Canal. Within Matlacha Pass itself (between Sword Point and
Indian Field), there are varied loci that appear to reflect way-
points and landings frequently utilized by the Indians in the
course of navigating the Pass by canoe. I view the Indians as
using the Pass as a canoe corridor in conjunction with the Pine
Island Canal after ca. A.D. 1000, if not a number of centuries
earlier, and that they continued to use it into the European
Contact Period.

Notes

1. Matlacha, formerly spelled "Mattlacha" (-ttl- is a
voiceless "1" in Muskogee), apparently is derived from
a Seminole-Creek chiefly title (Read 1934:14; Simpson
1956:72). Archaeological evidence of Seminole Indian
use of Matlacha Pass consists of a burial at Indian Field
(Luer 1989c), while the name "Indian Field" probably
refers to nineteenth-century Seminole Indian use of the
island. Immediately south of Matlacha Pass, Seminole
Indian artifacts are known from Fisherman Key (8LL10)
(Gilliland 1989:93; Goggin 1949:279; Kolianos and
Weisman 2005:63, 64, Figure 4.2; Wheeler 2000:Figure
4.51[41238]), which probably was part of the Punta
Rassa fish rancho (one of four major Spanish fish ranchos
in the Charlotte Harbor region). Historical documents
record a Seminole Indian trading post in the 1840s to the
immediate north of Matlacha Pass (e.g., Luer and Edic
2002:202, Note 8), hence the local place name "Burnt

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

BLANCHARD MATLACHA PASS

Store." Furthermore, the term "Pass" apparently signifies
"passage," in this case the shallow water route between
Charlotte Harbor and the mouth of the Caloosahatchee
River. This meaning is in contrast to the usual sense
of "pass" in this region, where it signifies a tidal inlet
between the Gulf and estuaries.
2. Smokehouse Key is labeled "Darling" on an early coast
chart (U.S.C.G.S. 1860), perhaps in reference to one of the
traders, Kennedy and Darling, who operated a Seminole
trading post in the area (Matthews 1983:183, 185, 196).
The same chart shows Matlacha Pass as an unmapped
corridor (dotted lines), suggesting that it was poorly
known to map-makers. Luer (1991) cites an account from
that time suggesting that Matlacha Pass was being used by
Key West oyster fishermen and rebel blockade runners.
3. Interested readers may refer to Goodwin (1996) for a
study of local tides.
4. I have noted how a well-stoked fire on the Howard Shell
Mound could have been seen by Indians across Charlotte
Harbor, even as far away as the shore of today's Port
Charlotte, at the mouth of the Peace River (Blanchard
2002:35).
5. I previously have viewed quahog clams and oysters as
storablee, transportable food" (Blanchard 1999:39) that
could be carried by canoe, "sometimes for long distances,
and consumed far from where they were gathered"
(Blanchard 1999:40). Lightning whelks, pear whelks, and
fighting conchs are well suited for such use. Transport
by foot of food molluscs (marsh clams, oysters, mussels)
also is noted by Luer (2002:77, 83-85) in the Charlotte
Harbor area.
6. Sedimentation and growth of mangrove swamp on the
prevailing downwind, lee side of the Josslyn Island shell
mound is supported by geological evidence (Upchurch
1992:64, 69).

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Robert Repenning and John Aspiolea,
both of DEP, for their faith in me. Robert Edic, Kevin Lollar,
and John Worth provided helpful comments. Lollar's wind
direction observations corroborated my own. Charly Branham
of the FMSF kindly provided new site numbers. I want to
thank George Luer, who edited this paper and provided end
notes. Ryan Wheeler also provided helpful information. Kevin
Porter produced the final figures, and I am indebted to him for
his expertise and patience.

Calusa Land Trust (CLT)
2005 Special Edition: A Wonderful Opportunity to Expand
the St. James Creek Preserve. Newsletter ofthe Calusa
Land Trust and Nature Preserve of Pine Island, Inc.,
November edition (www.calusalandtrust.org).

Cushing, Frank H.
1897 A Preliminary Report on the Exploration of Ancient
Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Pp. 120. Offprint from Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 35(153).

Upchurch, Sam B., Pliny Jewell IV, and Eric DeHaven
1992 Stratigraphy of Indian "Mounds" in the Charlotte
Harbor Area, Florida: Sea Level Rise and
Paleoenvironments. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William
H. Marquardt, pp. 59-103. Monograph 1,
University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies. Gainesville.

In this article, I discuss some of Florida's Native American
shell artifacts and then focus on four kinds recovered during
salvage work on state-owned Hooker Key (8LL30) and
Mason Island (8LL65)' in Lee County, Florida (see articles
about each site in this issue). I compare them to similar shell
artifacts found at other sites in the Caloosahatchee and Central
Peninsular Gulf Coast regions. All are fashioned from shells
of the left-handed whelk, also called "lightning whelk" and
variously identified by taxonomists in recent decades as
Busycon perversum, B. contrarium, and B. sinistrum. The four
kinds of shell artifacts that I analyze below are: 1) Type X
cutting-edged tools; 2) shell tops; 3) Type 2A vessels; and 4)
reduced shell scrapers (sometimes called "mashers," "spikes,"
and "grinder/pulverizers").

Geography and Shell Artifacts

In southwestern and west-central Florida, many kinds of
shell artifacts are shared by the Caloosahatchee and Central
Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological regions. The Manatee
Region (extending from southern Tampa Bay to Boca Grande
Pass at Charlotte Harbor, and which is now part of the Central
Peninsular Gulf Coast Region) is particularly rich in many
shell tool forms. Over the years, researchers have noted an
abundance and diversity of shell tools at sites in the Manatee
Region (e.g., Austin 1995; Bullen 1951, 1971; Bullen and
Bullen 1956, 1976; Luer 1986, 1992a, 1992b, 1999,2000; Luer
et al. 1986; Luer and Almy 1982; Luer and Hughes 2005).
The Manatee Region's shell tool traditions are as native
and deeply rooted as are those of more southern parts ofFlorida.
Some archaeologists who work in the Central Peninsular
Gulf Coast and Caloosahatchee regions know that many
types of shell artifacts are shared by those two regions, but
this commonality is often overlooked or little appreciated by
other investigators. The shell artifacts described in this article
conform to this pattern of being shared by the two regions, and
examples are cited from both.

Whelk Shells as Raw Material

For the Indians of west-central and southwestern Florida,
whelks represented more than an important food source. To
the Indians, a left-handed whelk shell (usually of moderate or
large size) presented a wide range of potential uses. Indeed,
whelk shells can be compared with today's plastic bleach
bottles, which Florida fisherfolk often transform into a variety
of useful tools. For example, they reuse intact bleach bottles

as floats on nets and traps, and they often cut (reduce) them
to make bailers, scoops, funnels, buckets, and bait containers.
In similar ways, the Indians could transform whelk shells
through clever processes of reduction (chipping and grinding)
to make drinking cups, cooking vessels, scoops, pounders, tool
blanks, cutting-edged tools (e.g., adzes, axes), various kinds of
hammers, and a host of other kinds of tools and ornaments
(e.g., body whorl gorgets, columella pendants, drilled beads,
etc.). The Indians used some of these modified shells as
tools by grasping them directly in their hands, whereas they
combined others with wooden handles and rawhide binding
to make hafted axes, adzes, and hammers, or tied them with
twine to use as gorgets, pendants, and beads.
The Indians carefully assessed the qualities of each
individual whelk shell (e.g., size, robustness) for their intended
purpose, and they used gracile and robust shells in different
ways. For example, they fashioned some robust whelk shells
into tool blanks and hoarded (cached) them. Later, such blanks
could be modified for use and sometimes further modified
(recycled) into other kinds of tools.2 In other cases, whelk
shells could be fashioned directly into desired tool forms (e.g.,
a Type D hammer with a full-length columella). The Indians
slowly, methodically, and painstakingly fashioned some shells
into precision tools (e.g., some body whorl celts), whereas
they rapidly modified, used, and discarded others as expedient
tools. Modern observations suggest that the Indians procured
robust whelk shells from waters around barrier islands, inlets,
and in the Gulf of Mexico, and that they might have procured
gracile whelk shells from quieter waters within bays (Edic
1999:70, Figure 4; Luer et al. 1986:95, 98, 119-120, Figure
3).
Given the essential role of canoes in the Indians' coastal
subsistence and travel, and the Indians' apparent need for
robust whelk shell cutting-edged tools for hollowing and
making dugout canoes, these tools and their precursors (tool
blanks) might have been of critical importance in southern
Florida coastal aboriginal cultures. I hypothesize that Indians
of high-salinity, outer estuary areas exchanged shell tool blanks
with Indians of inland and low-salinity areas3 in return for
other needed resources.4 If such exchange was controlled by
high status Indians, whelk shell tool blanks and cutting-edged
tools might have been crucial items in the Indian's social and
economic reproduction. If so, they could be called "keystone
artifacts" in coastal Florida aboriginal cultures (analogous
to keystone species in ecology, which are species that play a
significant role in supporting a food web and whose removal
would result in its collapse).5

VOL. 61(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2008

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

MARCH-JUNE 2008

VOL. 61(1-2)

1

Figure 1. Type X2c cutting-edged tool from Hooker Key. Note that the columella and inner whorls are missing from this
shell, which also has a large perforation in the center of the shell's top, so that most of the spire is removed. Inset shows a
view from below of the bit end (bevel and cutting edge). This specimen came from Looter Pit A in 2002.

Type X Cutting-Edged Tools

Seven left-handed whelk shell Type X tools came from
Hooker Key (Figure 1). Four were recovered during State of
Florida salvage work at Vandal Pit B in 2000, and Charles
Blanchard of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) salvaged two during backfilling of Vandal
Pit A in 2002 (see article about Hooker Key, this issue). I also
picked up one from the surface while working for the State
of Florida in 1988 (Luer and Archibald 1988).6 Radiocarbon
dates from Hooker Key support an age range in the first half
of the Caloosahatchee Period (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 100) for
these tools.
Type X tools also have been called "Type E" tools
(Marquardt 1992:197-198, 200-201), although the term "Type
X" has precedent (e.g., Bullen et al. 1978; Goggin 1952:115).
The Indians also fashioned Type X tools from channeled whelk
(Busycon carica) shells in the St. Johns River Basin, on the
Atlantic coast of Georgia and northeastern Florida, along the
Savannah River, and in inland South Carolina. Examples are
pictured by Bullen and Bullen (1961 :Figure 7f-h) and Wheeler
and McGee (1994:365, Figures 20, 21, 22).
Archaeologists view Type X tools as representing an early
stage in the evolution and use of whelk shell cutting-edged
tools. On the Gulf coast of peninsular Florida, this perspective
is presented at the Canton Street site in St. Petersburg (Bullen

et al. 1978:12) and at the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96)
in Sarasota (Luer 1992a:147, 149), based on evidence from
each site. Radiocarbon dates from the Palmetto Lane Midden
suggest that the transition from Type X to Type AX was
underway ca. A.D. 150, with Type X essentially preceding that
time and with Types A and B yet to appear.7
Each of the seven specimens from Hooker Key has one or
two perforations in the top of the shell (in the ultimate whorl
above the nodules and below the spire),8 which is a hallmark of
Type X tools. All seven specimens have modifications typical
of cutting-edged tools. Besides the perforated top of the shell,
these modifications include a modified outer lip (which was
chipped back and ground smooth) and a reduced siphonal
canal and columella (typically beveled). Four of the Hooker
Key specimens have cutting edges; two have them broken
away (apparently from use) and one is a preform with a major
bevel and unsharpened edge.
Table 1 lists the seven whelk shell Type X tools from
Hooker Key. The shells vary markedly in size and mass. They
range from 75 to 165 mm in length, 65 to 135 mm in width,
and 72 to 580 g in weight. The seven specimens also vary
in other ways, allowing several variants to be distinguished.
In Table 1, I label these forms as: 1) Type Xl, which has a
single perforation; 2) Type X2, which has two perforations;
and 3) and 4) Type Xlc and Type X2c, which have one or
two perforations in the ultimate whorl, above the nodules, plus

2 l 4
cm N cm

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Table 1. Seven whelk shell Type X tools from Hooker Key. The code for type is explained in the text.
Specimens come from the general surface (Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research [BAR] ac-
cession 90.034), spoil at Vandal Pit B (BAR accession 01.005), and spoil at Vandal Pit A. In the BAR
catalog numbers, the number immediately following 005 refers to the FS#. Width is measured at the
shoulder, below the nodules. The locations of perforations are in degrees (0) counterclockwise from
the end of the suture. The angle of the major bevel is the angle in degrees between the face of the bevel
and the long axis of the columella (the latter extending ideally from the apex of the spire to the base
of the columella).

Figure 2. The top of a whelk shell tool showing how the
locations of perforations are measured counterclockwise
from the end of the suture (which is at 0 degrees).

one in the center of the shell's top (so that most of the spire is
removed).
Table 1 also records the locations and sizes of perforations
in the top of the shells. Figure 2 shows how the locations of

perforations are measured. In Type Xl specimens, the single
perforation is near the modified outer lip (-210 to -250 degrees
from the end of the suture). Type X2 specimens have a similar
perforation plus another (-60 to -90 degrees from the end of
the suture). In Types Xlc and X2c, the specimens have the
center of the shell top removed to create another perforation.
The four Type X1 and X2 specimens in Table 1 represent
typical Type X shell tools because they have one or two
perforations in the top of the shell and because they retain their
inner whorls and the center of their spires. In contrast, the three
specimens of Type Xlc and X2c tools represent previously
unreported forms of Type X cutting-edged tools. Besides
having the center of the shell top removed to create a third
perforation, each of these three specimens has its inner whorls
and columella missing. Apparently, the Indians removed those
parts of the shells intentionally and skillfully. This left the
center of each shell "empty" so that only the modified ultimate
whorl remains.
These different modifications may reflect different methods
of hafting and perhaps different uses. In the "typical" form, the
one or two perforations in the top apparently helped in lashing
a handle to the shell. Perhaps a handle looped through the shell
(Moore 1921), or perhaps it was inserted through the aperture
(Wheeler and McGee 1994:365). For the Type Xlc and X2c
forms reported here, perhaps a handle was inserted through the
spire. The latter method was suggested by Moore (1919:402,

180

LUER

FLORIDA SHELL ARTIFACTS

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Figure 3. Three views of a whelk shell top from Hooker Key. This specimen came from Looter Pit A in 2002.

Plate XV) for a shell tool from Goodland Point (8CR45),
which had its inner whorls and upper spire removed.
Some further clues to how these shells might have
been hafted may be suggested by the shape and condition
of the perforations in the top of the shells. For example, the
perforation located -90 degrees counterclockwise from the
end of the suture is often oblong and narrow, with unground,
irregular edges. This is consistent with previous observations
suggesting that such a perforation represents a hole the Indians
made to extract the mollusc and that it also might have served
for insertion of leather thongs for lashing the shell to a handle.9
In contrast, the perforation closer to the cut-back outer lip is
often larger in size, round or oval in shape, and ground smooth.
These modifications may suggest that a handle was inserted
through it. Furthermore, in Type Xlc and X2c specimens, the
edge of the central hole is ground smooth, which may suggest
modification for insertion of a handle.
Regardless of how these shells were hafted, however, all
apparently were intended for cutting or scraping in a gouge-
like manner. Large specimens might have been used for
hewing wood, such as in making dugout canoes. The missing
bit end on a large specimen (BAR 90.034.01) may represent
use-related breakage. Another, smaller specimen (BAR
01.005.7.1) apparently is unfinished because it has a roughly
beveled columella but lacks a cutting edge.
The angle of the major bevel on all the Hooker Key
specimens is similar (Table 1). Most major bevels are very
slightly concave, with one very large specimen (from Vandal
Pit A) having a distinctly concave major bevel extending
across the reduced columella and outer lip (Figure 1). On the
Hooker Key specimens, the orientation of the cutting edge is

approximately parallel to a line drawn between the locations
where the two perforations were made in the ultimate whorl in
the top of the shell.
Type X whelk shell tools are uncommon on the Florida
Gulf coast. Besides those from Canton Street, Palmetto Lane,
and Hooker Key, there are reports of Type X ("Type E") tools
from Calusa Island (8LL45) (Luer 1989:252; Marquardt
1992:198) and Cash Mound (8CH38) (Marquardt 1992:200-
201, Figure 1:top row). In addition, I collected two Type X
tools during backhoe trenching at the Hill Cottage Midden,
Palmer Site (8SO2) in 1982 (Luer et al. 1986:121) and an
eroded specimen from the shore of Cedar Point Shell Heap
(8CH8) in 1993 (Luer 1999:Table 2). I also have seen two
Type X2 cutting-edged tools collected by the late Robert
Atwood from Braden River #3 (an unrecorded site along the
eastern shore of the river, southeast of 8MA33). John Dietler
(personal communication 2008) has measured specimens from
Turtle Bay 2 (8CH37), Patricio Island (8LL49), Josslyn Island
(8LL32), and Wiggins Key (8CR11).

Shell Tops

The tops of three intentionally reduced large whelk shells
were recovered by Blanchard during backfilling of Vandal Pit
A on Hooker Key in 2002. They appear to date to the first
half of the Caloosahatchee I Period (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 100)
(see article about Hooker Key, this issue). Each consists of the
spire and a portion of the ultimate whorl above the nodules
(Figure 3).
These shell tops have their inner whorls removed so
that they resemble spiral discs. While their inside surface is

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

LUER FLORIDA SHELL ARTIFACTS

modified, their outside surface is intact and retains the natural
shell sculpturing. Their function is unknown. They may
represent ornaments (gorgets?) rather than tools.
The three shell tops were produced by intentional
reduction. These modifications can be described by beginning
near the end of the suture. There, the Indian craftsperson
chipped back the outer lip in order to remove the shell's last
nodule and its surrounding shoulder edge. Next, most of the
ultimate body whorl was removed as he or she followed the
edge of the shoulder for approximately two-thirds of the way
around the shell. In doing so, he or she removed the nodules. As
the craftsperson neared a point -90 degrees counterclockwise
from the end of the suture, he or she shifted downward below
the edge of the shoulder, so that the nodules and shoulder were
retained as the modified edge approached the end of the suture.
From there, the craftsperson proceeded to remove the inner
whorls, roughly smoothing the modified edge as it spiraled
inward.
These modifications are visible on all three specimens.
The specimens are in good condition, although one is more
intact than the others. The apex persists in one specimen, but
is broken out and missing from the other two. It is unclear
if the missing apices represent an intentional modification or
subsequent damage.
The three shell tops from Hooker Key all could have been
produced directly by reduction. However, it is conceivable that
they might have been extracted or salvaged from Type 1 whelk
shell vessels because they share some similar modifications.
Type 1 vessels have all their interior whorls removed (Luer
2002a:162-167). However, Type 1 vessels typically have the
outer lip and last nodule intact (Gilliland 1975:Plates 108 and
109; Luer and Hughes 2005). Thus, if the Hooker Key shell
tops were extracted from Type 1 vessels, the removal of their
outer lip and last nodule was done after the vessel stage and
was one of the last modifications, rather than one of the first
(as described above).
I am unaware of identical shell tops in the literature.
Blanchard (personal communication, 2008) reports seeing a
number of different sized specimens at Turtle Bay 2, Cash
Mound, and Patricio Island. It is possible that other investigators
have overlooked them, especially fragmentary ones. However,
modified tops of large left-handed whelk shells are mentioned
occasionally in the literature, but usually they are too briefly
described to allow close comparison.
An example is "a spire possibly broken from a dipper/
vessel with inner whorls removed" that I found in 1993 at the
Cedar Point Shell Heap (Luer 1999:Table 2). My reinspection
discloses that it closely resembles the Hooker Key specimens,
although slightly more of its shoulder is present. Another
example is "an intentionally cut and smoothed portion of a
spire of a large robust left-handed whelk shell" that I found
in 1982 at Indian Field (8LL39) (Luer 1989:100). The Indian
Field specimen's inner whorl scars are ground smooth, and
it may represent a different kind of artifact than those from
Hooker Key.
Additional detached tops of large whelk shells are pictured
by Hoff and Hoff (2007:124). They show two specimens that
they identify as a gorget and a pendant. One is a trade item

found in West Virginia, and the other reportedly came from
Key Marco, Florida. Both are ground smooth on their modified
edges.

Type 2A Vessels

This is a recently recognized form of left-handed whelk
shell vessel. Specimens came from the Aqui Esta Mound
(8CH68), near Punta Gorda, with additional ones from Big
Mound Key (8CH10), near Cape Haze, and the Wrecked
Site (8CH75) on the lower Myakka River. Called a Type 2A
vessel, they represent one of at least three forms of whelk shell
vessel (Luer 2002a:162-167, 2007:187-188; Luer and Hughes
2005).
The Indians fashioned a Type 2A vessel directly from
a whelk shell by pecking a large hole in the ultimate body
whorl, opposite the aperture and below the nodules (see
diagram in Luer 2002a:Figure 42 and photographs in Luer and
Hughes 2005). In the past, this artifact form was recognized
occasionally and called an "anchor," which some unburned
specimens may represent (e.g., Bullen 1951:16; Gilliland
1975:201, Plate 117D; Reiger 1981:9-10). However, sizeable
whelk shells require considerable exposure to heat before
burning becomes apparent (Webster 1970), so some unburned
specimens may reflect shell vessels that were not subjected to
enough heat to damage them. However, inspection of many
specimens does reveal heat damage, including deteriorated
nodules and cracks or flakes in the shoulder and adjacent outer
body whorl where heat was most concentrated.
During salvage work on Mason Island in July 2007, I
recovered several Type 2A vessels. A very large specimen with
its heat-damaged bottom broken out from heavy use (FS17)
was in the excavation wall adjacent to Profile I. Several others
(FS16, 31) came from looter spoil near Profiles I and II (Luer
2008). These specimens apparently date to the Caloosahatchee
II Period (ca. A.D. 600 to 1200), based on radiocarbon dates
from those two profiles (see Porter and Glowacki 2007, and
this issue).
During subsequent work on Josslyn Island and Big Mound
Key in August 2007, I observed a number of additional whelk
shell Type 2A vessels in looter spoil. They clearly are more
common at those sites than previously noted. Over the years,
I also have observed several specimens at the Old Oak Site
(8SO51) in Sarasota. At all three of these sites, these vessels
appear to date to ca. A.D. 800 to 1300, based on the general
age of surrounding site deposits.
The fire-damaged bottoms on many of these specimens
indicate that the Indians' use of shell vessels over fire was
a common practice. Their commonness may suggest that
cooking was the primary use of Type 2A vessels, rather than
functioning as drinking cups or in serving black drink (a
caffeine-rich beverage brewed from yaupon holly leaves). The
latter uses might have applied to another form of left-handed
whelk shell vessel, namely Type 1. Type 1 vessels also occur,
but are less common than Type 2A vessels, on shell midden
sites in the Sarasota-Charlotte Harbor region. The relatively
frequent occurrence of left-handed whelk shell Type 2A
vessels with fire-damaged bottoms indicates that aboriginal

pyrotechnology involving shell vessels was more common
and widespread than previously realized.

Reduced Shell Scrapers

These tools often are overlooked because they appear to
be simply broken shells. They are variable in size, shape, and

use-wear, but each consists of a whelk shell's lower (anterior)
portion from which the upper (posterior) portion has been
chipped away. Thus, in shaping a typical specimen, the Indians
removed the shoulder edge and spire, the inner body whorls,
and the upper portion of the columella (Figure 4).
After such intentional reduction, the remaining artifact
consists of the lower portion of the ultimate body whorl (below

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LURFOIASHL RIAT

Figure 5. Two reduced whelk shell scrapers from the Old
Oak Site in Sarasota. Arrows point to worn edges that are
smooth (specimen a) or step-fractured (specimen b). Note
the beveled base of the columella on specimen a, which was
a cutting-edged tool before the Indians reduced it to give it
the form of a "masher" or "grinder/pulverizer."

the shoulder edge), plus the siphonal canal and a portion of
the columella adhering. On typical specimens, the edge of
the modified whorl often is step-fractured, and sometimes
smoothed, from use-wear. It appears that the Indians grasped
these artifacts by the columella and used them for varied tasks
such as scraping, digging, and smoothing. I have noticed these
reduced portions of whelk shells for many years, but have
given them little attention until now. Here, I recount some
of their occurrences and my gradual recognition of them as
tools.
In February 2007, Blanchard observed several of these
reduced portions of whelk shells on Mason Island. He saw
them as archaeologists profiled portions of two looter pits
dating to the Caloosahatchee II Period (ca. A.D. 600 to 1200)
(Porter and Glowacki 2007). In July 2007, I monitored the
backfilling of these profiles for DEP, and I collected five of
these artifacts (FS18, 19, 27, 32, 33) from spoil (Luer 2008).
Two are pictured in Figure 4.
Similar reduced whelk shells had been found previously
at other sites. For example, I recovered many during salvage
work in 1990 at the Palmetto Lane Midden in Sarasota, where
they date to the middle Manasota Period (ca. A.D. 150). On
some of these specimens, the edge of the reduced body whorl
defined a rough plane and, on some, the reduced columella
projected (slightly or prominently) beyond the body whorl's
modified edge. I called the latter "spikes" and the former

"mashers" (Luer 1992a:249; Luer and Archibald 1990:
Appendix III).
In form, these "mashers" and "spikes" resembled a whelk
shell artifact (called a "grinder/pulverizer") from Pineland
(8LL33), which has similarly removed body whorls and a
columella that projects slightly (Marquardt 1992:293, Figure
15, right). However, the Pineland specimen was intentionally
ground smooth along all its modified (reduced) edges, unlike
any of the Palmetto Lane Midden specimens. The Palmetto
Lane Midden specimens had been eroded by leaching while
buried, so I did not notice use-wear on them (although I might
have overlooked it). As a consequence, I viewed the Palmetto
Lane Midden specimens as shucking debris (Luer 1992a:249;
Luer and Archibald 1990:Appendix III).
In 1992, additional reduced whelk shells resembling
"mashers" and "spikes" were excavated from the Yat Kitischee
site (8PI 1753) in St. Petersburg. There, they date to the middle
Manasota through early Safety Harbor periods (ca. 100 B.C. to
A.D. 1200). They were called "grinder/pulverizers," and it was
noted that "the true function of this artifact remains unclear"
(Austin 1995:167, Figure 9.7).
In 2001, I collected a single "masher" from Josslyn
Island's Looter Pit B, dating to ca. A.D. 900 to 1300 (see
Josslyn Island article, this issue). During analysis of robust left-
handed whelk shell debris from Big Mound Key's Pit Feature,
dating to ca. A.D. 900 to 1000, I found some fragments that
may be from broken "mashers" (e.g., Luer 2007:Table F-7,
FS#181). In addition, during the last 35 years, I have observed
a number of intact "mashers" at the Old Oak Site in Sarasota,
which dates to the late Weeden Island and early Safety Harbor
periods (ca. A.D. 700 to 1300). Some Old Oak Site specimens
are identical to some from Mason Island.
The Indians appear to have fashioned the majority of these
reduced whelk shell scrapers ("mashers") directly from intact
shells (their siphonal canals are intact and unworn). However,
I recently found two specimens that the Indians apparently
made from shells that already had been fashioned and used as
cutting-edged tools. Both specimens have bit ends typical of
cutting-edged tools (a bevel ground on the base of a reduced
columella and adjoining body whorl). But, both bits are blunt,
showing that they no longer functioned as cutting-edged tools.
One specimen came from Lot 8, Test Pit #1, during excavations
at the Palmetto Lane Midden in 2004 (Luer et al. 2005:2-28,
Photo 8E) and the other came from the surface of the Old Oak
Site in 2006 (Figure 5a).
Thus, neither ofthese two specimens represents a functional
cutting-edged tool and neither represents shucking debris.
Instead, the Indians had intentionally reduced each one to give
it the form of a "masher," "spike," or "grinder/pulverizer." This
shows that this form had purpose or utility. It also suggests
that they were expedient tools (i.e., fashioned from a shell
at hand, which in these two cases were spent cutting-edged
tools, whereas most other examples were fashioned directly
from unmodified shells). Finally, the specimen from the Old
Oak Site (Figure 5a) has a leading edge on its body whorl that
is rounded and worn smooth, indicating that it was used for
smoothing or burnishing.

LUER

FLORIDA SHELL ARTIFACTS

VKW
W cr

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

_----- -..- --- ~ -
Figure 6. Close-up of the working edges on a whelk shell
scraper. Note the worn and step-fractured descending
edges to each side of the point. This specimen is pictured
in Figure 5b and might have functioned as a hand-held
digging tool (like a trowel).

With those thoughts in mind, I re-inspected a number of
similarly reduced whelk shells, including the "mashers" I had
collected on Mason Island in July 2007. I noticed that many
specimens have a descending or projecting edge along the
front of the modified (reduced) outer body whorl (adjacent
to the aperture), which is often flat or slightly rounded (see
arrows in Figure 4). Moreover, many step fractures often
occur on the outer edge of the reduced whorl, and the edge is
often somewhat smoothed (much smoother than farther back
on the shell). These attributes appear to represent wear from
scraping.
Typically, the rest of the modified edge along the outer
whorl of these reduced shells is rough and unworn. The planes
defined by some of these modified edges are highly variable,
ranging from nearly horizontal (Figure 4b) to acute (Figure
4a). The roughness of these edges, and the varied inclination
of the planes they define, reflect the expedient nature of these
tools.
These observations and inferences support the
interpretation that many of these shells were used as hand-
held scrapers. It appears that they were grasped around the
columella and held at their waist by the right hand. It also
appears that many were used to scrape with the leading edge in
a generally forward or sideway (leftward) direction. Perhaps
some were used to scrape hides, while others could have been
used to scale fish. Still others might have been used for digging
(in a manner resembling a garden trowel). In support of the
latter use, another specimen from the Old Oak Site (Figure 5b)
is very "trowel-like" in having the edge of its modified outer
whorl shaped to a point, with chipped and worn edges trailing
away to either side (Figure 6).
In sum, these reduced whelk shell tools vary in size,
shape, and apparent use. They appear to have been hand-held
tools that the Indians fashioned expediently. Many appear to
have been used for scraping (hence I call them "reduced shell
scrapers"), although many also could have served in digging.
Some appear to have been used for smoothing (e.g., burnishing
hides?). The Indians fashioned these tools for many centuries,
from at least ca. A.D. 150 to 1300, in both the Caloosahatchee
and Central Peninsular Gulf Coast regions.

Finally, I should note that reduced whelk shell scrapers
have some similarities to Archaic Period tools called "gouges"
fashioned from channeled whelk and left-handed whelk shells
in the St. Johns River area and northeastern Florida (e.g.,
Bullen and Bullen 1961:Figure 7c and d). This is because both
are fashioned from similar portions of whelk shells. However,
these Archaic Period gouges apparently had ground and
beveled bit ends (Wheeler and McGee 1994:361, Figure 18),
unlike the more recent whelk shell scrapers of west-central
and southwestern Florida.

Conclusion

In this article, I present new information about four kinds
of whelk shell artifacts. They consist of three kinds of tools:
Type X cutting-edged tools, Type 2A vessels, and reduced shell
scrapers. I also offer observations about "shell tops," which
are artifacts of unknown function that were fashioned from the
top (spire and ultimate whorl) of sizeable whelk shells.

Notes

1. I also recovered other kinds of shell tools on Mason Island,
such as columella hammers, horse conch shell hammers,
and quahog valve tools (Luer 2008).
2. This "continuum of modification" applies to some robust
whelk shells and was outlined in a simplified flow chart
(Luer et al. 1986). In reality, the fabrication processes for
all whelk shell tools are more complicated, with many
shells passing along additional pathways, some leading
directly to desired tool forms without passing through
earlier stages.
3. I have seen evidence that robust whelk shell cutting-edged
tools (apparently from sources in outer estuary areas) were
used intensively and consumed at some inner estuary
river-mouth sites (Blanchard 2002:39; Luer 2002b:65).
This consumption would have resulted in a consistent
demand for robust whelk shells, necessitating some kind
of movement among, or exchange between, the Indians
living in outer and inner estuary areas.
4. In southern Florida, I think that the Indians' common form
of material goods exchange involved partially prepared
items (e.g., tool blanks) and raw materials. In other
words, I think that a supplier made a limited investment
while a consumer (user) added the modifications needed
to produce and use finished tools and other goods. An
example of limited investment consists of pieces of queen
conch shell reduced by a producer and then apparently
traded northward for an eventual consumer to make into
usable beads or other items (Luer 1992b:273-274, Figures
5 and 6).
5. Archaeologists and anthropologists may obtain additional
insights into these cultures by investigating social and
economic systems in which the production, exchange,
use, and consumption of tool blanks and finished tools
were important.
6. I originally reported two specimens. The second (BAR
90.034.01) probably was a Type X tool (with at least one

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUER FLORIDA SHELL ARTIFACTS

perforation) but portions of its shoulder, outer body whorl,
and bit end are missing. Wear on its remaining shoulder
indicates that, after it was broken, the Indians used it as a
hand-held pounder.
7. The progression appears to go from Type X to Type AX
to Types A and B. Why this shift in forms occurred is not
known. Studies replicating their use may suggest why
they changed.
8. The term "spire" refers to a portion of the top of the shell
that is posterior to the ultimate whorl. The ultimate whorl
is the shell's last whorl, extending one full revolution
backward around the shell from the end of the suture
(see diagrams in Moore 1900:381, Figure 30 and Abbott
1974:9).
9. A perforation located -90 degrees counterclockwise
from the end of the suture occurs primarily in tool shells
and is very rare in food shells. It is identified by Moore
(1921:16-17) and Luer et al. (1986:111-112) as a hole the
Indians made to extract the mollusc from the shell. When
shells with such a perforation (e.g., tool blanks) were
fashioned into tools, it apparently served as a lashing hole
to accommodate a rawhide cord (e.g., Luer et al. 1986:110;
Moore 1921:17, Figure 10; Reiger 1981:10).

Acknowledgments

Louis Tesar of BAR, and Dan Hughes, Sarasota County
Archaeologist, kindly scanned shell artifacts that appear
in figures of this article. Kevin Porter of BAR applied his
computer expertise to produce finished figures. Marie Prentice
of the BAR Collections Facility provided access to some whelk
shell cutting-edged tools, and John Dietler of the University
of California, Los Angeles furnished helpful information for
standardizing measurements of them. Charles Blanchard of
DEP salvaged several artifacts analyzed here from Hooker
Key, and he encouraged recovery of "mashers" from Mason
Island. Blanchard facilitated canoeing to Hooker Key, and
Craig Blocker of DNR and John Aspiolea of DEP provided
airboat transport to Mason Island. Charles Blanchard, Ryan
Wheeler, and especially John Dietler furnished helpful review
comments.

2000 Shell and Bone Artifacts in the Tallant Collection,
South Florida Museum, Bradenton, Florida. Report
dated May 25. Pp. 22. Prepared for Synergy Design
Group and the South Florida Museum. Copy on file
with George Luer.

2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late
Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big
Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

2008 Addendum to Profiling at Mason Island (8LL65),
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. Ms. in
preparation. To be filed with the Florida Master Site
File. Tallahassee.

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida
Anthropologist 35:34-58.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Technical Report Number 6.
Miami.

Marquardt, William H.
1992 Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In
Culture and Environment in the Domain of the
Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 191-
227. University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1.
Gainesville.

The State ofFlorida's acquisition of many environmentally
and archaeologically significant lands has led to the protection
and preservation of numerous cultural resources. In a state
where development is occurring at a rapid rate, acquisition
is one way to protect archaeological sites from development.
Even on sites that have been purchased, however, erosion
often has a severe impact. A great deal of information can be
lost due to erosion from wave action, storm tides, or other
natural or human-made forces. Active management includes
the identification of these threats and determining the best way
to avoid or mitigate their impact. One such method involves
archaeological salvage of threatened areas.
The Turtle Bay 2 site (8CH37), in Charlotte Harbor
Preserve State Park (CHPSP), is experiencing erosion. During
the last 20 years, several individuals have expressed alarm at
the rapid rate of erosion at the site (Charles Blanchard, Robert
Edic, and George Luer, personal communication 2002; Luer
and Archibald 1988).
Archaeologists from the Florida Conservation and
Recreation Lands (CARL) Archaeological Survey were asked
to salvage some information from the Turtle Bay 2 site. In
April 2002, archaeologists Christine Newman and Brenda
Swann were working for CARL, and they visited the site to
conduct the salvage work reported here. Charles Blanchard
and Keith Laakkonen of the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) provided assistance, and John Worth, then
with the Randell Research Center at Pineland, and Robert
Edic, a concerned citizen familiar with Charlotte Harbor area
archaeological sites, aided in the operation as well.

Site Setting and Background

The Turtle Bay 2 archaeological site is located near
the southeastern tip of the Cape Haze Peninsula, on the
western shore of Turtle Bay (Figure 1). Several important
archaeological sites are nearby, including Big Mound Key
(8CH10), Cash Mound (8CH38), and the John Quiet Mound
(8CH45). In addition, several less-prominent sites such as
Turtle Bay 1 (8CH36), Turtle Bay 3 (8CH39), Fish Camp
(8CH23), and Cape Haze (8CH48) are nearby.
Turtle Bay 2 was first recorded by a University of Florida
Site Survey team in the early 1950s and mentioned soon after
by archaeologist John Goggin (1954). Archaeologists Ripley
and Adelaide Bullen documented the site in 1956. While they

did not conduct excavations at the site, the Bullens made
a surface collection including fiber-tempered, semi-fiber
tempered, and sand-tempered plain sherds (Bullen and Bullen
1956:49-50).
In 1988, George Luer and Lauren Archibald provided
additional descriptions of the site in their assessment of
known archaeological sites in the Charlotte Harbor State
Reserve (now CHPSP). They noted that much of the site had
"been stripped away by natural erosion" and that the midden
was "seriously jeopardized by erosion" (Luer and Archibald
1988:31). They estimated that the midden's highest point was
approximately 7 ft above mean high water level and included
a contour sketch map of the site in their document (Figure 2).
A 1988 photograph of George Luer sketching the map, while
standing in the water near the site's eroding bank, appears in
Edic (1996:6).
In 1990, CARL archaeologists Brent Weisman and
Christine Newman used a video camera to record erosion at
Turtle Bay 2 (Weisman and Newman 1990). They noted that
the highest point along its eroding bank appeared to have an
elevation of approximately 2.5 m (Newman 1990), but they
did not inspect the overall site. In 1999, Robert Patton visited
the site and recorded stratigraphic information from the
eroding, eastern side of the midden. He also collected artifacts
and radiocarbon samples from the profile, but lacked funds
for radiocarbon dates (Patton 2000:29, 140-141, 147, 148, also
2001:265-269, Figures 30 and 46). In April 2001, Blanchard
filed an updated Florida Master Site File form for the site,
again calling attention to the problem of erosion (Blanchard
2001).

Field Methods

In April 2002, CARL archaeologists spent three days at
the Turtle Bay 2 site. They began by cleaning a section of the
eroding eastern wall of the midden. A relatively vertical area
was chosen along one of the highest portions of the eroding
midden. The wall was cleaned and a profile was drawn. Shell
and animal bone samples were chosen for radiocarbon dating
based on size, placement within the midden, and species. Small
numbers of artifacts found during the cleaning and drawing of
the profile were also collected. These were cleaned, analyzed,
and placed in the Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR)
Collections Facility (accession number 03.059).

VOL. 61(1-2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH-JUNE 2008

VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

MARCH-JUNE 2008

86 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

-.'
. _.. ,
-,. .., ,: -., i-. I _ .m
~ ~ "" ..'. .. .. : ,...

23

OM.
-3

.k -
-'1'

:At-- rtC

r w r. ; ..,' .,'" .. ..' -* .. .. ,,..

* . .. .* .. :.. -. :* .., *. _. . .. ,.^ ..|
^ ,~,''. ''.

r'^s^b3'.ja8:-1.. \.&^

te^^^^w^'^^^^
^' "if ^^-^ :;:.^m^

II~~F~, ;
:; -=

Figure 1. Location of Turtle Bay 2 (8CH37) on the western side of Turtle Bay. Also note nearby Cash Mound and John Quiet
Mound, both protected by Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Figure 2. Sketch map of Turtle Bay 2 (contours and scale approximate) from Luer and Archibald (1988). Note the location
of our profile in April 2002. The four Xs indicate National Ocean Survey benchmarks. The "building on pilings" is a fishing
retreat.

Using a transit, several topographic points were taken
along a line in order to obtain the height of the midden. The
points were tied to a nearby National Ocean Survey benchmark
for which our Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument
indicated a UTM location of N2964476/W0382538. Later,
Laakkonen returned and walked around the edge of the site
(its raised, obvious surface shell) with a GPS instrument.
The crosshatching in the lower portion of Figure 3 reflects
the boundary of this area of obvious shell. On top of the
crosshatching, the contours sketched by Luer in 1988 have
been situated approximately (Figure 3).

Description, Interpretation, and Results of Salvage Effort

Site Plan

Turtle Bay 2 resembles some of the smaller shell
middens in the Charlotte Harbor area. Often these sites are
"oval, teardrop, or kidney bean" in shape and "tend to have
comparatively simple relief' (Luer et al. 2001:12). Turtle
Bay 2 rises rather abruptly from the mangrove swamp on the
northern peninsula of an island on the west side of Turtle Bay.
The site differs from similar ones in that its highest point is
close to the open water, in this case Turtle Bay.

NEWMAN AND SWANN

SALVAGE AT TURTLE BAY 2

88 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

8C 3 /I

Figure 4. Keith Laakkonen of DEP inspects the area of
the Turtle Bay 2 profile before work began, April 2002.
Photograph by Charles Blanchard, courtesy of Charlotte
Harbor Preserve State Park.

Figure 3. Plan views of the Turtle Bay 2 Site. The top is an
enlarged portion of a historic photograph (United States
Department of Agriculture 1952). The bottom shows the
area (crosshatched) of obvious shell, based on GPS data,
overlain approximately by the 1988 sketch map.
It is likely that this is due to natural erosion on this eastern
side of the site. Based on numerous artifacts found in the water,
and to the south of the site on what is probably redeposited
shell, the site probably was larger and extended farther into
the bay. That being the case, its original relief toward the east
would have been more gradual than it is today.
The estimated location of our drawn profile within Luer's
1988 plan of the site is marked in Figure 2. A portion of the
site has eroded into the bay since 1988. The position of our
profile within the site is based on the measured height of our
profile and Luer's estimated elevations. When we arrived in
April 2002, the area appeared as shown in Figure 4.

Description and Interpretation ofProfile

Our profile (Figure 5) revealed several distinct layers of
local shell accumulation, which we labeled "levels." While the

same shell species were found in most layers, the percentages
of specific species, the compactness of the shell, the percentage
of articulated shells, and the amount of soil and other material
combined with the shell varied among the strata. This variety
may serve as an indication of human activity, each layer
perhaps representing a change in activity.
The profile we drew measured 3 m in length by 2 m in
depth (Figure 6). We took GPS readings at a location (UTM
N2964440/W0382594) at the top and bottom of the profile.
The readings indicated that the bottom of the profile had an
elevation of approximately 2 ft, 11.5 in (90 cm), and that the
top of the profile had an elevation of approximately 8 ft, 9.5
in (268 cm), with respect to approximate assumed mean sea
level.
Beginning at the surface, Level A was a humic layer
composed of grayish brown soil. Within it, eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) and king's crown (Melongena corona)
comprised the majority of the shell.
Level B, just below Level A, was markedly different,
being mostly shell with very little soil. The majority of the shell
(80%) was oyster, while clam (Mercenaria campechiensis),

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Turtle Bay 2 (8CH37). The measured and conventional ages are 1
sigma ranges expressed in radiocarbon years B.P. (before present; present = A.D. 1950). Asterisks indi-
cate that the C13/C12 ratios were estimated by Beta Analytic, Inc., as 0.0 o/oo, based on values typical
of marine shell, and that the derived conventional and calibrated ages incorporate these estimates. The
calibrated date ranges are at 2 sigma and were provided by Beta Analytic based on the Intcal98 Radio-
carbon Age Calibration.

scallop (Argopecten sp.), and king's crown shells also were
noted. A sand-tempered body sherd was mapped in situ and
later collected (Field Specimen #10 [FS#10]).
Level G was directly below Level B, but it did not extend
across the entire profile. This level was similar to Level B but

contained more soil and less oyster shell (70%). A large horse
conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) (FS#8) was collected at the base
of the level. This specimen was sent to Beta Analytic, Inc.
(Beta-177406), and a calibrated (2 sigma) range of cal 3370 to
3000 B.C. was obtained (Table 1).

NEWMAN AND SWANN

SALVAGE AT TURTLE BAY 2

TI*~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

Level C was the stratigraphically dominant layer. An
increase in the percentage of clam was apparent, as was a
decrease in the percentage of oyster (60 to 65% of the total
shell). Other species noted were left-handed whelk (Busycon
sinistrum), king's crown, ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa
granosissima), and tulip shell (Fasciolaria spp.). Soil was
present, but not in the amount noted in Level G. A charcoal
and shell concentration was removed as a field specimen
(FS#7) from the center of Level C. A sample of the shell was
radiocarbon dated (Beta-177405), and a calibrated (2 sigma)
range of cal 580 to 210 B.C. was determined (Table 1).
In Level D, more soil and less shell were present. King's
crown, ribbed mussel, and quahog clam shells were noted.
Interestingly, articulated oyster shells were observed in this
layer. A marked increase in bone was present, and several areas
of concentrated fish bone, ash, and charcoal were mapped.
Three concentrations were collected as field specimens
(FS#1, FS#3, and FS#9). Two of these field specimens were
radiocarbon dated. FS#9, a concentration of ash and oyster
shell, was removed from the profile, and the oyster shell (Beta-
177407) was found to have a calibrated (2 sigma) age range of
cal 1000 to 770 B.C. A large clam shell (FS#5) was removed
from the profile (Beta-177403), and a calibrated (2 sigma) age
range of cal 780 to 390 B.C. was obtained from the shell.
Below Level D was Level H, in approximately one-half
of the profile. It was similar to Level D, but the shell was not
as compact. Level H was composed of loose shell, charcoal,
ash, and bone.
Below Level H, and underlying the rest of Level D, was
Level F. Level F was composed of crushed mussel, clam,
giant cockle (Dinocardium robustum vanhyningi) and a small
amount of oyster shell. Numerous fish bones, notably catfish
(Ariidae), were seen within the layer. FS#4, a deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) long bone, was removed from the base of Level F.
We hoped to have it radiocarbon dated, but we did not because
of the expense. The specimen is curated at BAR.
We encountered a lens of ash mixed with clay within Level
F (underlying Level H). This lens contained less shell than
the overall layer, and we labeled it "Feature 1" (Fl). FS#6,
consisting of whelk and oyster shell, was removed from the
base of Fl. Radiocarbon dating of FS#6 provided a calibrated
(2 sigma) age range ofcal 780 to 390 B.C. (Table 1). Level E
had the same composition as Level F, except the shell was less
compact.

Interpretation ofStratification

There are two general types of midden deposit in many
shell middens in southwest Florida: "refuse" and "habitation"
deposits (see Bullen and Bullen 1956; Luer 1977:45-56).
In general, levels of relatively clean shell represent a rapid
accumulation or refuse activity. They contrast with zones of
shell mixed with sandy dirt, sherds, charcoal, and food bones,
which represent habitation areas or "buried living areas"
(Bullen and Bullen 1956:8).
In the profile from Turtle Bay 2, both refuse and habitation
deposits are evident. Levels B, C, and G have characteristics
of refuse deposition, while Level F appears to be a habitation

layer. Levels D and H also represent habitation layers, but of a
different nature than that found at Level F.
In Levels B, C, and G, the shell species are similar, but
with increasing percentages of oyster shell occurring closer to
the surface. Another marked difference is the increase in clam
shell found in Level C. No difference in compactness between
the levels was noted, but more soil was present in Level G.
The reason for this is not fully understood, but may represent
a more purposeful covering of the refuse deposit with the
addition of soil. In the analysis of the profile at Hooker Key
(8LL30), it was suggested that sandy soil could have been
obtained from nearby tidal areas and dumped on the shell
midden for sanitation and convenience purposes (Luer et al.
2001:18).
The habitation Levels D, F, and H are very different and
probably represent at least two distinctive types of occupation.
In Level D, several pockets of same-species shell refuse were
found throughout the layer, as were distinctive areas of burned
shell and bone, and ash and charcoal. In addition, articulated
oyster shells were noted in the layer. Level H was similar in
terms of charcoal and bone, but the shell was not as compact.
In Level F, the shell was crushed and loosely compacted. A
marked increase in fish bone also was noted throughout the
entire level, rather than limited to distinct areas. It was from
this layer that a deer long bone was recovered.

Comparison with 1999 Profile

Comparing profiles drawn by different individuals at
different times and places can be difficult, but it can be helpful in
understanding past human and natural activities. In comparing
the 2002 CARL profile with the one drawn by Patton in 1999,
several factors, such as location, elevation, erosion, and
personal interpretation, should be taken into consideration. In
general, Patton noted two distinct zones, A and B, and several
strata within the zones (Patton 2000:147, 148, 2001:267-269,
Figure 46). Many of his strata roughly correlate with those
we noted in the CARL profile. Probably the most interesting
correlation is between the bottom two strata in both profiles.
These strata represent habitation levels rather than shell refuse
deposition. Ash lenses and compactness of shell were noted
in these layers in both profiles, suggesting that at these times
of deposition the site was being inhabited across these two
surfaces.

Interpretation ofRadiocarbon Dates

Five radiocarbon dates were obtained from samples of
marine shells that we collected from specific locations within
the profile (Table 1, Figure 6). All items we used for dating
were mollusk shells and represent food refuse. We assume that
Native Americans collected the shells from estuarine waters
and that they removed the "meat" for food and discarded
the shells as refuse at the Turtle Bay 2 site. Our original
report of fieldwork (Newman and Swann 2003:Appendix A)
presents a list of field specimen numbers, provenience, catalog
numbers, specimen descriptions, and radiocarbon dates. Most
specimens we collected consisted of faunal remains (examples

2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

NEWMAN AND SWANN SALVAGE AT TURTLE BAY 2

of different kinds of shells and fragments of barnacles, crab
claw, and vertebrate bone) plus a few shell hammers and sand-
tempered plain sherds.
All but one of the dates are relatively close in age, ranging
from a calibrated range of cal 1000 to 210 B.C. These dates
will be discussed first, followed by the problematic date. A
calibrated range of cal 580 to 210 B.C. was obtained from a
shell and charcoal concentration in Level C (FS#7). This is the
latest date from the profile and was recovered from a level that
we thought reflected refuse deposition rather than a habitation
level. It was collected 80 cm below the surface.
Two radiocarbon dates were from Level D (directly below
Level C). One date was from a large clam shell (FS#5) within
the general refuse, and the other date was from a concentration
of oyster shell and ash (FS#9). A calibrated age range of cal
780 to 390 B.C. was obtained from the clam shell, and a range
of cal 1000 to 770 B.C. was obtained from the oyster shell
within the ash. These two dates are equivalent because the
conventional dates overlap at the 2 sigma range (2800 +/- 140
for FS#5, and 3040 +/- 120 for FS#9).
Below Level D is Level F. One additional level, Level H,
was noted between D and F in half of the profile. Level H is
similar to Level D but with loose shell. Both are believed to
be habitation levels. A radiocarbon sample was collected from
Level F within a lens of slightly less shell mixed with clayey
ash, shown on the profile as Level Fl. A calibrated range of
cal 780 to 390 B.C. was obtained from a shell sample (FS#6)
within the level. This is the same age as that recovered from
Level D, implying that the layers may be contemporaneous or,
at least, very close in age.
The one date that was older than the rest, calibrated range
cal 3370 to 3000 B.C., is problematic. It was obtained from
a single large horse conch shell removed from the profile in
Level G. Although this shell produced the earliest date (older
by ca. 2,000 years), we collected it from the stratigraphically
latest position. Perhaps it is simply a very old shell that was
collected by the Indians, who deposited it "out of place" in a
later deposit.
Overall, the radiocarbon analysis places occupation at this
portion of the site from at least 780 B.C. (perhaps 1000 B.C.)
to 210 B.C. These dates fall within the Florida Transitional
Period (ca. 1000 to 500 B.C.) and the early Manasota Period
(ca. 500 B.C. to ca. 100 B.C.). The latter is equivalent to the
early Caloosahatchee I Period on the southern side of Charlotte
Harbor.

Comparison with other Radiocarbon Dates

Our dates from Turtle Bay 2 are earlier than most dates
from other sites in the Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound
areas. Probably the most comparable, in terms of collection
strategy, are from the profiles at Hooker Key. There, calibrated
dates range from cal 520 B.C. to A.D. 125 (Luer et al. 2001:25;
also see this issue) which, as a group, overlap but are slightly
later than the Turtle Bay 2 dates.
Several calibrated dates based on marine shells from
Useppa Island (8LL51) fall within the same range as those
from Turtle Bay 2. In addition, earlier and later dates than

those from Turtle Bay 2 were recovered from Useppa Island
(Marquardt 1999:79).
Much later dates were obtained from two sites, Big
Mound Key and Cash Mound, which are close to Turtle Bay 2.
At Big Mound Key, measured radiocarbon dates (uncorrected,
uncalibrated) from three layers within a pit feature range
from A.D. 880 +/- 140 to A.D. 860 +/- 80 (Luer 1986, 2007).
At Cash Mound, measured radiocarbon dates (uncorrected,
uncalibrated) from different column sample levels range from
A.D. 150 +/- 90 to A.D. 680 +/- 70 (Walker 1992:303). Dates
from Josslyn Island (8LL32) and Buck Key Midden (8LL722)
also are later (Walker 1992:303).
Thus, many of the area's sites post-date the Turtle Bay
2 site. However, some early sites containing fiber-tempered
pottery, such as Calusa Island (8LL45) (Luer 1989), have yet
to be radiocarbon dated. An early occupation, suggested by
sand- and fiber-tempered pottery, also is probable at nearby
Cash Mound, only 1.1 km (0.7 mi) north of Turtle Bay 2
(Bullen and Bullen 1956; Marquardt 1992:33).

Discussion and Conclusions

Turtle Bay 2, like many coastal Florida sites, is experiencing
severe erosion. In order to collect some information from
the site before erosion takes its toll, CARL archaeologists in
cooperation with DEP personnel and experienced volunteers,
conducted a limited salvage operation. A profile of a 3 x 2 m
section of the shell midden was drawn and five samples from
the midden were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., for radiocarbon
analysis.
The findings provide important information about the age
and cultural affiliation of the site and allow for its temporal
placement within the larger region. The site produced the
earliest dates thus far in the Cape Haze area. But, when placed
in the wider temporal framework of the area, the dates fall
within the expected range. In general, radiocarbon analysis
establishes site occupation from at least 780 B.C. (perhaps
1000 B.C.) to 210 B.C. These dates fall within the Florida
Transitional Period and the early Manasota Period coevall
with the Terminal Archaic and early Caloosahatchee I periods
of farther south).
The salvage operation during 2002 at Turtle Bay 2
confirms a statement made by John Goggin several decades
ago, when he analyzed a series of sites in the Cape Haze area.
He noted that "Turtle Bay appears to be a focal point of sites
offering most to the excavator. Unfortunately, its isolation
poses problems . which will have to be worked out in the
field" (Goggin 1954:7). The area is no different today; it still
holds a great deal of promise in terms of helping to understand
prehistoric activity in the Charlotte Harbor region.

Acknowledgments

We extend thanks to Charles Blanchard for his help in
and out of the field. He arranged our transportation to and
from the site and helped with all logistics of the project. Keith
Laakkonen also helped in the field, served as our boat captain,
and provided GPS information for part of Figure 3. Thanks

NEWMAN AND SWANN

SALVAGE AT TURTLE BAY 2

Tmi FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

go to Edwin Woolverton, who gave us a place to stay and a
dock for launch. John Worth and Robert Edic offered ideas
about the Charlotte Harbor area's history, and they helped with
fieldwork. John Dietler's review comments clarified several
points. Special thanks go to George Luer, who gave information
and thoughts about the site that were helpful. George also
provided editing, and Kevin Porter of BAR produced some
of the figures.

2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late
Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big
Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
CharlotteHarborStateReserve. Conducted forFlorida

Marquardt, William H.
1992 Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental
Investigations in Southwest Florida. In Culture and
Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited
by William H. Marquardt, pp. 9-57. Monograph 1,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, University of Florida. Gainesville.

1999 Useppa Island in the Archaic and Caloosahatchee
Periods. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island,
edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 77-98.
University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph Number 3.
Gainesville.

Patton, Robert B.
2000 The Charlotte Harbor Mounds Survey, Phase II:
Report of Investigations. Report dated September.
Prepared for the Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, by the Florida Museum of
Natural History. Gainesville.

2001 Spatial Structure and Process of Nonagricultural
Production: Settlement Patterns and Political
Development in Precolumbian Southwest Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Walker, Karen J.
1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's
Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and
Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment
in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H.
Marquardt, pp. 265-366. University of Florida,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, Monograph Number 1. Gainesville.

In March 2006, we documented looter damage in Charlotte
Harbor Preserve State Park (CHPSP) at two significant
archaeological sites, Catfish Point (8CH9) and Hollenbeck
Key (8CH17). Both sites are located near Gasparilla Sound
and the Cape Haze Peninsula, to the southeast of Placida,
Florida (Figure 1). This area is in the southern portion of the
archaeological region known as the Central Peninsular Gulf
Coast Region (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Milanich 1994).
We assessed the general condition of the sites in order
to update the Florida Master Site File, and then profiled
and radiocarbon dated a looter hole in each site. Our work
was conducted through Public Lands Archaeology (PLA), a
program of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research
(BAR) that assists in the management of cultural resources
on state lands. The present project was part of an on-going,
collaborative effort by BAR and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) to address problems of
looting and erosion on state-owned archaeological sites.

Background

The Catfish Point Site is a large shell midden in the Cape
Haze area that borders the western shore of the mouth of
Catfish Creek and extends westward along the adjoining shore
of Gasparilla Sound (Figure 1). The midden measures 360 m
(1,200 ft) in length and 60 m (180 ft) in width, and tapers off at
its northern and western ends. Its highest elevation is 2 m (6 to
7 ft) above sea level, just northwest of a deteriorated historic
dock (Figure 2). The site was affected adversely by a now
abandoned twentieth-century homestead, mosquito control
ditches, looting, and erosion. Previous archaeological work
at Catfish Point was carried out by Goggin (1954), Luer and
Archibald (1988), Jones (1999), Patton (2000, 2001), Torrence
(2003), and Torrence and Schober (see this issue).
Hollenbeck Key is a moderate size shell midden on the
southern tip of a mangrove island located on the eastern side of
Gasparilla Sound (Figure 1). It is 1 km (0.6 mi) west-southwest
of Big Mound Key (8CH10). The site's southern and eastern
edges are fringed with mangrove. The highest elevation is 1.5
m (4 to 5 ft) above sea level in the wide, central portion of the
site (Figure 3). Its length measures 60 m (200 ft), narrowing to

a point in a northeastern direction and broadening in a southern
direction. Previous work at Hollenbeck Key was conducted
by Goggin (1954), Luer and Archibald (1988), Jones (1999),
Patton (2000, 2001), and FEI Surveying (2002). Topographical
data supporting a site map by FEI Surveying (Figure 3) are in
Appendix 1.

Salvage Efforts

At Catfish Point, salvage work required that a path be cut
to the damaged area. A chainsaw was used to remove Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), which was so pervasive
that it would have been impossible to reach the area without
removing it. Following removal of exotic vegetation, a looter
pit at each site was described, photographed, measured, and
located using a GPS unit. Table 1 lists our GPS data.
We selected two looter pits for profiling based on their
location, condition, and extent of visible stratification. For each
pit, a vertical wall (stepped to retain structural integrity) was
exposed to create a clear profile, removing as little additional
matrix as possible. Vertical and horizontal control was utilized
in drawing the profiles and to describe soils, artifacts, and
faunal remains.
A small number of artifacts, such as shell tools and
ceramics, were collected during the cleaning and drawing
process (see Porter and Glowacki 2006:Appendix 1 for
specimen inventory). These are mentioned below in our
descriptions of the looter pits. We also collected shell samples
from each stratum and used them for radiocarbon dating.
Recovered items are curated in Tallahassee (BAR accession
number 07.191 for 8CH9, and BAR accession number 07.198
for 8CH17). Lastly, backfilling the looter pits was carried
out by DEP staff, who placed sand bags in each pit and then
covered them with adjacent midden spoil.

Catish Point Looter Pit

The looter pit we profiled at Catfish Point was noted
in 1988 by Luer and Archibald (Figure 2). At that time, it
measured 3 m north to south, 3.5 m east to west, and 1.1 m in
depth. Since then, much infilling has occurred. It was recorded

as looter pit 1 by Torrence, who identified four other looter
pits as well (2003:Figure 9) (also see Torrence and Schober,
this issue: Figure 7).
In March 2006, we cleared the looter pit's eastern wall.
We then stepped it to document the stratification, as illustrated
in Figure 4. The completed excavation yielded a profile
measuring 1 m in width (north to south) and 1.65 m in depth.
Stratum 1 extended across the profile (north to south
orientation) from the ground surface to a depth of 30 cm below
the surface at its northern end and 15 cm below the ground
surface at its southern end. The stratum's soil matrix was
composed of 25% very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2; after
Munsell), fine sandy humic soil intermingled with detritus
(vegetation, roots, etc). It contained primarily fighting conch
(Strombus alatus), followed by king's crown (Melongena
corona) and eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) shells with
a small number of ceramic fragments.
Stratum 2, below Stratum 1, extended across the profile
from 30 cm below the ground surface to 80 to 95 cm below

Figure 2. Sketch map of Catfish Point Site (Luer and Archibald 1988). Arrow points to the looter hole profiled in 2006.

mussel, scallop, and pen shell (cf. Atrina sp.). Also present
were low frequencies of remains of sea urchin (Lytechinus
variegatus), shark (Chondrichthyes), stone crab (Menippe
sp.) and fish (catfish [Ariidae], sheepshead [Sparidae]). In
addition, Stratum 3 contained 12 sand-tempered plain sherds,
a quahog clam left valve chopper, and a worked bone fragment
(possibly whitetail deer, Odocoileus virginianus).
In 1999, Patton (2000, 2001:250-252, Figures 27 and 43)
excavated a 1 x 1 m test unit 15 m to the east-southeast of our
Catfish Point profile. He found an upper layer (Stratum III,
which included many fighting conch shells) that may correlate
to our Stratum 1. He also encountered deeper layers (Strata
IV through VI, which included much dark sand) that may
correlate to our Strata 2 and 3. Due to lack of funds, Patton did
not obtain radiocarbon dates.

Hollenbeck Key Looter Pit

At Hollenbeck Key, we profiled and sampled another large
looter pit (see Figure 3). This looter pit was noted by Luer
and Archibald (1988) as well as by FEI Surveying (2002), and
much infilling had occurred over the years. It measured 2.8 m
north to south and 2 m east to west, with a depth of 0.9 m. The
eastern profile wall of the pit was cleared of vegetation and
stepped to document its stratigraphic content (Figure 5). The

completed excavation yielded a profile that measured 1 m in
width (north to south) and 1.85 m in depth.
The partially disturbed Stratum 1 extended across the
profile. It had a maximum thickness of 50 cm (north portion of
profile) and narrowed to 15 cm thick (south portion of profile).
This difference was a result of the slumped surface in the
upper wall of the looter pit, toward the south. The stratum's
soil matrix was composed of 50% grayish brown (10YR4/2),
fine sandy soil intermingled with a moderate frequency of
detritus (vegetation, roots, etc). It contained primarily eastern
oyster, king's crown, small to medium size left-handed whelk,
banded tulip, moon snail, and quahog clam shells, and a small
number of ceramic fragments.
Stratum 2 also extended across the profile (Figure 5). At
the profile's northern edge, it reached from 50 cm below the
ground surface to at least 1 m, where our profile narrowed.
It continued downward, which we determined by digging a
smaller shovel test at the base of our profile. Its soil matrix
was composed of a lower frequency (>25%) of grayish-brown
(10YR5/3) fine sandy soil intermingled with shells including
eastern oyster, king's crown, left-handed whelk, moon snail,
pear whelk, and brown and banded tulips. Smaller amounts of
bay scallop, horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantia), spiny cockle
(Trachycardium egmontianum), quahog clam, pen shell,
fighting conch, and ribbed mussel shells were present. We also

approx. 400 feet
p > I

approx.
N

Profiled Looter

Catfish Creek

Gasparilla Sound

dock

PORTER AND GLOWACKI

CATFISH POINT AND HOLLENBECK KEY

Tin~FLOIDA N~mO~o~G~s 200 VO. 611-2

A

1. DATE OF LAST FIELD WORK: MAY 14,2002
2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ONA A ASSUMED TIDAL
SIGNATURE ALONG THE SHORELINE ASSUMED TO BE 100
3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATION OF THE
CONTROL LINE SHOWN WHICH BEARS N6707'18"E
4. THE 12d GALVANIZED NAILWAS OBSERVED WITH MAPPING GRAIN
GPS & HAS A POSITION OF N89.425, E580,928 BASED ON STATE
PLANE COORDINATES NAD 193 (1990 ADJUSTMENT)
S. THIS IS NOTA BOUNDARY SURVEY

Figure 5. Profile of eastern wall (stepped) of looter pit at Hollenbeck Key. The long axis of the trowel and tape
measure indicates north/south orientation.

PORTER AND GLOWACKI

CATFISH POINT AND HOLLENBECK KEY

TIff FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2008 VOL. 61(1-2)

observed remains of shark and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus),
and ceramic fragments. This stratum had better preservation,
with a higher frequency of whole shells, than in Stratum 1.
Ground water was encountered at 1.2 m below the ground
surface. Further excavation of a 35 x 35 cm test pit below the
water level revealed very little change in the matrix. The kinds
of shells present remained the same as in Stratum 2.

Stratigraphic Interpretations

The profiles of the looter pits at Catfish Point and
Hollenbeck Key contained varying frequencies of shell species
with differing degrees of matrix compactness and soil to shell
ratios. Most of the molluscs were exploited as food and their
shells discarded. However, the presence of occasional tools and
ceramics, as well as a moderate volume of intermingled sand
at Catfish Point and in the upper stratum at Hollenbeck Key,
indicate habitation. The shell deposit in the deep shovel test
at Hollenbeck Key appears to have less matrix compactness,
soil, and artifacts than in Stratum 1 and thus seems to represent
deposition related to the discard of food refuse.
The ceramics from Catfish Point consisted of sand-
tempered plain sherds, some relatively thick, that appeared
to be of the Manasota Period (ca. 500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 700).
The pottery from Hollenbeck Key appeared to be later than
that from Catfish Point because its sand-tempered plain sherds
had thinner body walls and included a Belle Glade Plain body
sherd, the latter dating to after ca. A.D. 500 to 700 in this area
(e.g., Cordell 1992:146, 165, Table 33; Luer 1989:119-121;
Widmer 1988:84). Although a small sample, field inspection of
sherds from Hollenbeck Key suggested an age of ca. A.D. 800
to 1300 (George Luer, personal communication, March 2006),
based on previous studies of formal variation in aboriginal
pottery in the area (e.g., Cordell 1992; Luer and Almy 1980).

Radiocarbon Dating

Eight samples of marine shells were collected for
radiocarbon testing. Four came from Catfish Point, and

four from Hollenbeck Key (see Porter and Glowacki 2006:
Appendices 1 and 2 for descriptions of samples). The types
of marine shell utilized for these samples included fighting
conch, king's crown, quahog clam, and left-handed whelk.
Dates derived from the samples indicated a relatively
contemporaneous or close temporal distribution within each
site's strata. Table 2 lists the measured radiocarbon dates, the
conventional radiocarbon dates, and the 2 sigma calibrated age
ranges.

Catfish Point Dates

A calibrated range of cal A.D. 575 to 735 was obtained
from fighting conch shells in Stratum 1 (FS#9). This sample
was collected at 25 cm below the ground surface. A sample
from Stratum 2, again of fighting conch shells (FS#6 and 7),
yielded a calibrated range of cal A.D. 390 to 570. In Stratum
3, two radiocarbon dates were obtained, one from quahog
clam shells (FS#3 and 4) and one from king's crown shells
(FS#5). The former yielded a calibrated range of cal A.D. 240
to 430, and the latter a calibrated range of cal A.D. 220 to 440.
The radiocarbon analysis places occupation at Catfish Point
from at least cal A.D. 220 to 735. In general, this falls within
the middle to late Manasota Period of the Central Peninsular
Gulf Coast Region (Luer 2002:2) coevall with the late
Caloosahatchee I Period and the Caloosahatchee IIA Period of
the Caloosahatchee Region).

Hollenbeck Key Dates

The two radiocarbon samples recovered in Stratum 1
were derived from king's crown and left-handed whelk shells
(FS#14). The king's crown shells yielded a calibrated range
of cal A.D. 1180 to 1390, while the left-handed whelk shells
yielded a calibrated range of cal A.D. 1030 to 1280. In Stratum
2, two radiocarbon samples were obtained from left-handed
whelk shells. The conventional radiocarbon date obtained from
the upper portion of Stratum 2 (FS#12) yielded a calibrated
range of cal A.D. 1040 to 1230. The lower portion of Stratum

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from Catfish Point (CH9) and Hollenbeck Key (CH17). The measured and con-
ventional ages are 1 sigma ranges expressed in radiocarbon years BP (before present; present = A.D. 1950).
Calibrated date ranges are at 2 sigma and were provided by Beta Analytic, Inc., based on the Intcal98 Radio-
carbon Age Calibration.